Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Rocket Range, South Uist

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the preparation of the guided-missiles project in South Uist; the total expenditure to date; how many civilian workers are at present employed; and when the range will be fully operational for the firing of the Corporal or other missiles.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): Progress is up to schedule and the range will be fully operational early in the summer, although construction work will go on for a time after that. Expenditure on works services so far in South Uist totals £106,000. There are about 170 men employed in the island.

Mr. MacMillan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, has the civilian employment now reached its peak and how many men will be retained permanently at the range? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the local people that this is a purely training project and that atomic or nuclear warheads will not be either stored or employed at the range?

Mr. Soames: As to the second part of the supplementary question, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. In reply to the first part, we are rather beyond the peak. More men were employed earlier than are being employed today. Once the constructional work ends, there will not be the same possibilities for the employment of large numbers of civilians.

Personnel, Cyprus (Sentences)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and other ranks in the Army have been dismissed from the Service, demoted or sentenced to imprisonment for offences committed during their service in Cyprus.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of British Army personnel who have been subjected to disciplinary action as a result of their activities during operations in Cyprus.

Mr. Soames: No central record is kept of summary convictions. So far as courts-martial are concerned, there have been 57 officers and 1,340 other ranks convicted in Cyprus since the emergency began in November, 1955.
Of these, 22 officers and 353 other ranks received the sentences listed by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Most of the remainder were sentenced to detention.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling which has been expressed on both sides of the House about the continued detention of some of these officers and men? In view of the action of the Governor of Cyprus in referring to Colonel Grivas and his friends and accomplices as if they were heroes, and of Archbishop Makarios in pinning a medal on Colonel Grivas, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it reasonable that our men should be retained in detention?

Mr. Soames: This is an inter-Service problem and the right hon. Gentleman has a later Question on the specific point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Secretary of State aware that as I was afraid that the Question, being No. 71, would not be reached, I took no chances and had it deferred until next Wednesday? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give me the Answer which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence would have given?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Defence has asked my permission to answer the right hon. Gentleman's Question, if it is not reached, at the end of Questions. I thought I had better tell the right hon.


Gentleman, because he will get an answer whether his Question is reached in the ordinary course or not.

Mr. Shinwell: That is only pouring coals of fire on my head.

Mr. Mellish: While recognising the right hon. Gentleman's desire to retain the disciplinary code in the Army, he will nevertheless understand that this is a matter which surely warrants investigation of each individual case to see what can be done in view of the strong feelings which exist here, although we recognise the difficulties involved. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on this?

Mr. Soames: This is an inter-Service problem in which not only the Army is involved. This very Question is being answered later.

Vickers Machine Gun

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the Vickers machine gun, with which the Army is still equipped, will be modified to take ·300 ammunition.

Mr. Soames: The Vickers gun will not be modified. It will be replaced in due course by a sustained fire machine gun now under trial. This gun will fire the standard N.A.T.O. round.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it quite out of the question to use the ·300 ammunition on the present gun?

Mr. Soames: indicated assent.

Tanks (Gun Tests)

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the overturning of a tank in recent tests of a new gun; and, in view of the risks involved for soldiers taking part in such tests, what consultations he has had with the Minister of Supply in order to avoid further risk of this kind.

Mr. Soames: I cannot trace any such recent incident. The new 105 mm. gun is safe to fire and there is no unusual risk to the crew of a tank armed with it.

Mr. Mason: While I am glad to be assured that a recoil system has now been developed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that when the gun was tested on completion at Solway Firth, Dumfriesshire, it recoiled

violently for twenty yards? Luckily nobody was hurt, but I should like to know what happened to the crew on that occasion. Is not it ridiculous that a test should take place in this fashion without any scientific analysis having been made beforehand to determine what the recoil would be?

Mr. Soames: I assure the hon. Member that there is no foundation whatsoever to that report.

Mr. Mason: If I obtain details of this incident, will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Mr. Soames: Certainly I will, but the hon. Member will not find them.

Three-ton Trucks

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for War how many different main types of three-ton trucks are now being provided for the Army; what are the major differences in main components, such as engine, gear-box and transmission; and for how many different types of instruments and accessories spares have to be held in Army supply units.

Mr. Soames: We are providing one standard three-ton chassis on which can be built eight different bodies according to need. This keeps the range of spares to a minimum. There are no additional instruments or accessories.

National Service Men

Mr. Mellish: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to segregate National Service men into separate units.

Mr. Soames: None, Sir. The proportion of Regulars to National Service men varies from unit to unit. The proportion of Regulars increases as recruitment improves and as the number of National Service men called up is reduced.

Mr. Mellish: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that in the re-equipping of the Regular Army we were to have new weapons, new equipment and new uniforms? As I gather that these will go only to the Regulars, will not the Army be a ramshackle affair, with a proportion of the men having new equipment and the poor, wretched National Service men using the old?


Surely it is intended to do something about that?

Mr. Soames: I am surprised at the hon. Member getting hold of the wrong end of the stick to such an extent. As the equipment goes out and is issued to units, it goes to all men in those units, including National Service men.

Mr. Mellish: Including uniforms?

Mr. Soames: They are not out yet.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent he is considering the possibility of releasing National Service men before the completion of their two years' period of service where the Army can no longer provide them with useful employment.

Mr. Soames: The number of men being called for National Service is being progressively reduced as the Army gets smaller. Those already serving will complete the period of two years.

Mr. Mellish: But that does not answer the Question, does it? I was asking whether, when the Army can no longer provide them with useful employment, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to keep these men kicking their heels.

Mr. Soames: That is not so. I was asked whether I was considering releasing National Service men before completion of their two years' service and I said that those already serving will continue for the two years.

B.A.O.R. (Divisional Headquarters)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the new streamlined divisional headquarters are located with the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Soames: Three, Sir.

Mr. Strachey: If the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us the number of brigade groups in Germany, out of exaggerated deference to security, as I should have thought, can he say whether these three divisional headquarters now control brigade groups which he considers equal to the four divisions that we are pledged to maintain in Germany?

Mr. Soames: There has been considerable reorganisation and new thinking not only in tie British Army but in the armies

of all our Western Allies on the size and scope of divisions and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Army in Germany is organised in terms of brigade groups now.

Junior Leader and Apprentice Schools (Commissions)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War how many candidates for commission have come forward from the junior leader and apprentice schools, and over what period; how many have been successful; and what proportion of the total intake this figure represents.

Mr. Soames: In the time available I have not been able to obtain figures in the form set out in the Question. I will send them to the right hon. Member. There are at present about 1,500 officers in the Army who entered the Service as boys or apprentices.

Mr. Strachey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we should like to have these figures, because the Under-Secretary spoke of the remarkable number of young officers who have passed through these schools? I very much hope that that is the ease. It is an important and good development if it is so. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I should like to have the real figures not only in private but on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Soames: The Question was tabled on Monday and I am afraid that I have not been able to complete my inquiries. I will send the figures to the right hon. Gentleman or answer a Question later—whichever he wants.

National Service (Grants)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War why the sum allocated to National Service grants for 1959–60 is so much greater than the estimate for 1958–59.

Mr. Soames: As hon. Members know, the age of call-up for National Service is being allowed to rise. Because the recruits are older more of them are married and in general they have in civil life heavier obligations than was previously the case. We are making allowance for this by providing for more and larger National Service grants in the coming financial year.

Mr. Chetwynd: But has there been any improvement in the actual scale of the National Service grants? If so, can they be made retrospective to apply to those already made?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. Each National Service grant is considered on its merits. We have to take account of the fact that over the past three years the number of grants has risen from 7,000 to 9,600 and the average annual amount of individual grants from £80 to £105.

Personnel, Cyprus (Withdrawal)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made to ensure that British Service personnel will not suffer financial loss as a result of being withdrawn from Cyprus.

Mr. Soames: Large-scale movements of troops out of a country at the end of an emergency always bring their special problems. I have asked the Commander-in-Chief to inform me of the scope and size of the problem in Cyprus.

Mr. Strachey: I shall be glad to hear that information, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all feel that British Service personnel ought to receive very special consideration, because this is entirely different from an ordinary posting? It is the result of a dramatic change in the Government's own policy—a change in their mind—which could not have been anticipated by the personnel. I should have thought that there was a strong case for special treatment of these men.

Mr. Soames: I cannot accept it when the right hon. Gentleman says that there has been a change of policy. It is the successful fruition of the Government's policy.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the purpose behind this inquiry by the Commander-in-Chief? Is it to find out whether circumstances warrant help to troops who may be penalised because of withdrawal from Cyprus?

Mr. Soames: Large-scale withdrawals, such as from Kenya and Korea, in the past have brought their problems and I am anxious to know their scope.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisements

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, during the screening of the play, "Hot Summer Night", recently on Independent Television, an artificial break was made in the play for advertisements, the action being stopped at a climax with a character talking from the top of some stairs and being resumed with the character again talking and descending the stairs; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Television Authority.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): The Authority does not regard this break as natural and instructed the programme company the following day that breaks of this kind, though perhaps suitable in the theatre, could not be allowed in its transmission under the Act's "natural break" rule. It has emphasised this to all the companies.

Mr. Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am glad that one of these practices is condemned by him? Has he seen the Gallup Poll which shows that viewers in a proportion of three to one dislike the intrusion of advertisements into programmes in unnatural breaks? How long are these gentlemen to get away with it? If the right hon. Gentleman wants an all-party agreement on the extent of the intrusion of advertisements into programmes, would not it be a good idea to direct the I.T.A. to go some way to meet our point of view?

Mr. Marples: In this case, the I.T.A. has condemned the mistake without reservation. It has cautioned the particular company and it has informed other companies. I doubt whether we shall ever have complete all-party agreement on commercial television.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pleasure it has given us that a Daniel has at last come to judgment?

Mr. Marples: Not a bit of it. This really shows that the Authority is doing its job.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that


at 6.15 p.m., approximately, on Saturday, 14th February, a singer on Independent Television was apparently faded out before the end of his song in order to insert advertisements; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the singer was faded out to make room for advertisements. The presentation technique for this particular song allowed for the final words to die away deliberately as they are repeated several times. I understand that the same technique is employed in a gramophone record of the song in question.

Mr. Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is just another example of the way in which these programmes are being manipulated so as best to allow the intrusion of advertisements in the middle of them? Would not it be a good thing, in view of the extent of public opinion, as shown in the Gallup Poll, to instruct the I.T.A. to go at least some way to meet these criticisms that there are too many unnatural breaks in the programmes?

Mr. Marples: That supplementary question is based on the assumption that it was an unnatural break at that point. I have listened to the gramophone record which has gone on sale. I have it downstairs in my room with a gramophone. I am quite prepared for the hon. Member or any other hon. Member to listen to it, because the treatment of the song on television was precisely the same as its treatment on the gramophone record. The song is called, "Real Wild Child". It was sung by a man called Ivan and it fades away with "Wild child, wild child, wild child." I have listened to the gramophone record, which is more than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has done.

Sir R. Grimston: In order to get some sense of proportion on this matter, may I ask whether my Tight hon. Friend has seen the letter which appeared in today's Times, written by a gentleman who has made some researches into this matter? The conclusions he has reached are that the complaints come almost entirely either from people who have no television sets or those who have sets which will receive only the B.B.C. programmes?

Mr. Marples: I have read the letter with great interest, especially as the gentleman has made some scientific investigations.

Mr. Shinwell: If we avail ourselves of the invitation extended by the right hon. Gentleman to come to his room to hear this gramophone record, will he put on a little liquid refreshment?

Mr. Marples: The Post Office does not finance those things.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, contrary to the rules laid down by the Independent Television Authority about the use of statistics in advertisements, claims are being made that a particular bread is exactly eight times more good for the viewer than any other bread, that a particular sweetmeat is seven times less fattening than ordinary chocolate, and that a particular oil reduces engine wear by exactly 80 per cent.; and whether he will issue regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act to make sure that the Independent Television Authority enforces rules about this misleading use of figures.

Mr. Marples: It is a matter for the Authority to ensure compliance with its "Principles for Television Advertising". In general advertisements in which there is doubt are referred to the Authority by the programme companies. If the Authority is in doubt it refers them to its Advertising Advisory Committee. These advertisements were not so referred, and in view of the hon. Member's allegation I have asked the Authority to obtain the opinion of the Committee.
The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir".

Mr. Chapman: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. We are making progress. He is being kind in asking for this matter to be investigated. May I draw his attention to the fact that when an ordinary citizen wrote to the advertiser about the claim in regard to engine wear, and asked him to substantiate the claim, in reply the advertiser evaded the question about substantiating the figure of 80 per cent. That figure, of course, meant that an engine would last five times as long as any other engine which was not using his oil. Does not


the Minister agree that, if that kind of thing happens, it ought to be stopped as soon as possible?

Mr. Marples: I have no doubt that the Advertising Advisory Committee will read HANSARD in respect of the Answer to this and also the previous Question.

Mr. Gower: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to an advertisement which exaggerated a great deal by pretending that Labour could meet Britain's needs in the future?

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to the Question presupposes the fact that the advertisements are not submitted by the programme companies to the I.T.A.? Indeed, he admits that.

Mr. Marples: That is not so. I will read my reply again so that the hon. Gentleman gets it right. In general, advertisements in which there is doubt are referred to the Authority by the programme companies. In this case the programme company did not think there was doubt, but as an hon. Member of this House has said to the Postmaster-General that there is doubt, I have taken his allegation at its face value and I have tried to meet his point by referring it to the Committee, which I thought was reasonable.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of complaints by professional bodies and individuals that advertisers are making extravagant claims for their products on Independent Television, he will make regulations under Sections 4 (4) and 4 (5) of the Television Act that any such claim must be capable of proof and demonstration before an independent committee.

Mr. Marples: One of the functions of the Authority's Advertising Advisory Committee is to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors with a view to the exclusion of misleading advertisements. Such advice has been given and acted upon. I see no need therefore for regulations by me under Section 4 (4) or directions under Section 4 (5).

Sir L. Plummer: Is the Postmaster-General aware that when his predecessor announced the setting up of the Advertising Advisory Committee, he

allayed the fears of a large number of hon. Members as to whether exaggerated claims would be made. Now, demonstrably, exaggerated claims are being made, so will he now look at the constitution of the Advertising Advisory Committee to see whether it is advisable to have representatives of advertising agents on it?

Mr. Marples: I am satisfied with the composition of the Advertising Advisory Committee, which is a responsible body of experts drawn from all spheres of life. The B.M.A., the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Ministry of Health and the veterinary surgeons, all are represented on this body. I am certain that they are expert and efficient. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific exaggerations in mind, I will do what I did for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), and refer them to the Advertising Advisory Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the advice of medical experts. In the case of the engineering claim that a particular oil saves 80 per cent. in the wear of an engine, surely medical people are not the best to advise him on that point?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir, but we cannot have a representative from every profession and industry in the country on that Committee. It would be a very unwieldy body if we did that. However, the Committee can always seek advice from outside experts, and I am sure it will do that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations have taken place under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, between the Independent Television Authority and himself relating to advertisements; and how many directions he has given to the Authority as provided for in Section 4 (5).

Mr. Marples: On 22nd June, 1955, my predecessor told the House that he had approved the "Principles for Television Advertising" in so far as they related to matters falling within his jurisdiction under Section 4 (5) of the Act. Since then the Authority has consulted me formally about the advertising of four different items. In each case I was m agreement with the Authority's proposals and therefore no need for directions from me arose.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been conflicts over the Floor of this House about his powers in this matter? Does not he recognise that he has power to issue directions to the Independent Television Authority, in any case in which he thinks fit, under Section 4 (5) of the Act, and may we have it clearly stated now that the right hon. Gentleman accepts some responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Marples: The Television Act seems to be capable of infinite interpretation by different hon. Members. Section 4 (5) relates to consultation on admissible classes of goods and services. In those cases where the Independent Television Authority has consulted me, I have done my best to look at the point dispassionately, and in the last two years we have taken out four items which were inadmissible.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of great consequence? Will be consult subsection (5) again, which lays down specifically both the type of goods and the methods of advertising in respect of which he has power to give directions?

Mr. Marples: Section 4 (5) calls for consultation with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and description of goods and services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed, and calls on the Authority to carry out any directions he may give in those respects. I am quite satisfied that at the moment the Authority is carrying out its duty of consulting me on any possibly inadmissible case.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General on what date the Independent Television Authority decided that certain toothpaste advertisements offended against the rules approved by him; and on what date those advertisements ceased to be transmitted.

Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that one advertiser on being asked to substantiate his claims, or to revise his script, withdrew his advertising as from 1st January this year. Another asked to amend his script on 27th January is revising his advertisement. The present advertisement will not appear after the end of this week.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in December the Advisory Committee decided that these advertisements ought to be withdrawn? Why was it that the I.T.A. gave the advertisers a few weeks in which to withdraw their advertisements?

Mr. Marples: That is another question. Personally, I am of the opinion that it was too long a time and in that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, I must ask the House to remember that this discrimination refers only to television advertising and that the same advertisements have been carried by newspapers of all descriptions. The same advertisement has appeared in a variety of newspapers, including the Daily Mirror and the People. The Television Authority is more scrupulous about its advertisements than any other body I know.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is not responsible for newspapers but is responsible for television advertising?

Mr. Marples: I do not know who is responsible for the newspapers I have mentioned.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Are we right in assuming that the toothpastes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are Colgate and Gleam? Why is it that the objections to these advertisements were brought to his attention and to that of the House on 21st November when evidence was given in the debate of that day of the grave apprehensions of the dental profession, and that nothing was done about the matter until January?

Mr. Marples: The Advertising Advisory Committee discussed this matter on 20th October. It was called to the Committee's attention by a member of the British Dental Association who is on the Committee. The Committee considered it before it was mentioned in the House. I do not think that it is right and proper to mention individual firms in the House.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Independent Television Authority permits eight minutes and more of advertising an hour when serious programmes are broadcast and if he will make regulations under Section 4 and Schedule 2 to the Television Act to limit the amount of advertising time.

Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) on 4th March.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply gave the impression that the reason why more than six minutes' advertising was allowed was the nature and length of the programmes, whereas in fact it depends on whether or not the programme is shown at peak hours or off-peak hours? Will he correct that impression, since the true reason for excessive advertising is that the programme contractors find it more profitable to advertise at peak hours?

Mr. Marples: A lot depends on the nature of the programme being transmitted. At present the transmitted programmes average between 60 and 65 hours, and between January and February on up to eight occasions there were six advertisements lasting for eight minutes, there was one lasting eight and a half minutes, and on two occasions at the most they lasted more than nine minutes, all depending on the nature of the programme.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are far more breaks at peak times than during low viewing times? How does it come about that it is a regular occurrence for more breaks and more time devoted to advertisements to come in peak periods rather than at any other time?

Mr. Marples: The curious thing is that there is no complaint from the general public. Where people can view I.T.A. and B.B.C., of the time spent in viewing twice as much is spent watching I.T.A. as B.B.C. If people object, they can switch to the station where there is no advertising.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But that is no excuse for breaking the law.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Gallup Poll on Tuesday showed that 81 per cent. of I.T.A. viewers were annoyed by the breaks and that the vast majority of I.T.A. viewers pronounced themselves in favour of the Bill which I am presenting to the House? Would he agree that it would be a shame if that Bill were killed without the House being given an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Marples: I should hate to see any Bill of the hon. Gentleman's killed. In reply to this reference to the Gallup Pall, there is a letter in The Times today from Mr. Geoffrey Gorer, who carried out 2,000 scientific investigations and who found that the people he interviewed did not really mind about advertisements.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does the Postmaster-General mean that the results of the Gallup Poll are not worthy of consideration and that the poll is unreliable? Is he repudiating it altogether? All of us have doubts about the Gallup Polls from time to time, especially when they are not favourable to us, but surely the Gallup Poll has sufficient reputation not to be treated in the contemptuous manner which the Postmaster-General has shown.

Mr. Marples: I have not treated it in a contemptuous manner. I said that there was another poll which gave different results, and I have to balance the one against the other.

Mr. Freeth: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent he has received specific complaints from the general public about the rules relating to natural breaks in Independent Television Authority programmes.

Mr. Marples: I have seen the News Chronicle Gallup Poll based on specific questions. As regards spontaneous complaints from the general public I have received since 1st December, 1958, four letters of criticism about the insertion of advertisements in natural breaks. For two years prior to that date I received none.

Mr. Freeth: Would my right hon. Friend infer from that information that there is no strong public agitation? Is not it confined to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Marples: I think that that is the right conclusion.

Mr. Mayhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the replies to protests from viewers about natural breaks are now sent out by I.T.A. in duplicated letters?

Mr. Marples: I shall have to have notice of that supplementary question. I do not know the answer myself.

Mr. Freeth: asked the Postmaster-General what evidence he has that viewers are dissatisfied with the way in which, under the rules contained in the Second Schedule to the Television Act, 1954, advertisements are inserted in Independent Television Authority programmes.

Mr. Marples: I have received in the last six months four letters only from the general public. They have all come in since 1st December. The Authority itself has had five letters from the public. It tells me that its audiences are as large as ever, and that at least two-thirds of the time spent viewing television in homes with a choice is given to the Independent Television programmes.

Mr. Freeth: Does my right hon. Friend, therefore, agree that there is no case for amending legislation further to restrict the programme contractors as to the places where they insert advertisements into their programmes?

Mr. Marples: I think that the introduction of Independent Television has had a beneficial effect on television as a whole.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not asking for new legislation; we are asking that the provisions of the present legislation shall be faithfully carried out?

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman was against the present legislation at the beginning, and has been ever since. I am satisfied that its provisions have been carried out efficiently and well.

Western Isles and North-West Highland Coastal Areas

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General when he intends to authorise the expenditure by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the money necessary to provide television and very high frequency services for the Western isles and north-west Highland coastal areas.

Mr. Marples: The matter is under consideration.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that this has been the Answer for quite a long time past, will the Postmaster-General say something a little more practical and sympathetic and announce a target date for a service in this area?

Mr. Marples: I cannot give a target date at the moment.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that the B.B.C. is extremely anxious to get on with this job, that there is no difficulty as far as it is concerned, and that it is purely a matter of authorising it to spend the money? What is the delay now?

Mr. Marples: There are quite a number of problems to be solved.

Colour Television

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Postmaster-General what is the present stage of research into the practicability of colour television; whether any more economical system has yet been devised; and whether the Television Advisory Committee has yet reported to him on the matter.

Mr. Marples: The technical problems of colour television systems are being considered by the Television Advisory Committee whose report I still await.

Line Definition

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Postmaster-General what decision has been made to increase the line system of television to harmonise Great Britain with other countries.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir. Such a decision must be preceded by consideration of a report on the matter by my Television Advisory Committee which I still await.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be consideration by this House before he takes a decision?

Mr. Marples: I promised the House that as soon as I received the report I would place a copy in the Library, so obviously hon. Members will have a chance to study it.

Independent Television Authority (Members)

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to change the members of the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Marples: As and when existing appointments expire it will be my responsibility to consider how vacancies can best be filled.

Mr. Hobson: In view of the repeated breaches of the Television Act with unnatural breaks and the advertising of quack medicines, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present membership of the Advisory Committee should be reviewed, since the members are not safeguarding the interests of the public?

Mr. Marples: I do not accept the assumptions on which that supplementary question is based.

Independent Television Authority and Programme Companies

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Independent Television Authority and the programme companies.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Again, in view of the breaches of the Act which are constantly made by the programme companies and condoned by the I.T.A., and the repeated criticisms of hon. Members on both sides of the House, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we should have a Select Committee, with power to send for papers and persons, to discover the real relationship between the I.T.A. and the programme companies?

Mr. Marples: I cannot accept those assumptions, particularly the suggestion of criticisms from both sides of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a director of one of these companies has publicly said that he regards this attitude as permission to print pound notes—the profits being so exorbitant in television? Should not some of this money go back to the public to develop television services?

Mr. Marples: A great deal of it does go back to the public by way of taxation.

Programme "This Week" (Transcript)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General if he has yet ascertained who was the author of the transcription

of the programme, "This Week", on 1st January, sent by the Assistant Postmaster-General to the hon. Member for East Woolwich.

Mr. Marples: The Authority tells me that the transcript was provided by Associated Rediffusion.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no serious check on the working of the Television Act is possible unless the monitoring and transcribing of the programmes is done not by the programme contractors themselves, but by I.T.A. officials? Is he aware that when I made a complaint against Associated Rediffusion, all that happened was that the Minister asked I.T.A. to ask Associated Rediffusion for the evidence? Is he aware that when I made that complaint, the Assistant Postmaster-General sent me a document, typed on Ministry paper, which referred to the employees of Associated Rediffusion by their Christian names and which was inaccurate and slovenly in all respects?

Mr. Marples: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has written to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, who is to answer that letter, and we had better wait until the hon. Gentleman has had that answer.

Television Advisory Committee (Report)

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee appointed by him will be made available to hon. Members.

Mr. Marples: I am not yet able to say. I have not yet received the Report, but I repeat my promise to lay a copy in the Library as soon as I receive it.

Mr. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the question of a third television channel has been referred to the Television Advisory Committee?

Mr. Marples: Without notice, I am not sure what its terms of reference are, but generally speaking it is going into the problem of line definition, including colour, and the necessary measures required to carry that out.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Overseas Calls (Charges)

Mr. Russell: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what plans he has for reducing the charges for telephone calls from the United Kingdom to Commonwealth countries, especially as many of the charges are the same irrespective of distance;
(2) what plans he has for reducing the charges for telephone calls between the United Kingdom and European countries.

Mr. Marples: Although anxious that our rates should be as low as possible, the present financial results of the overseas telephone services as a whole would not allow me to make any general reductions. The existing scales of charges—which have remained unchanged since the war—are, I believe, generally accepted as fair. The uniformity of our charges for Commonwealth services reflects the fact that, apart from the important Canadian link, these services are provided by radio, so that costs are largely independent of distance.

Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he can say why there are so few night rates, except to Canada, and when will it be possible to have more, particularly in countries in roughly the same longitude?

Mr. Marples: I should like notice of that question.

Telephone Directory, Edinburgh

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Postmaster-General how many cases have been reported to him of omissions or inaccuracies in the new issue of the Edinburgh telephone directory; and what steps he is taking to recompense subscribers who suffer financial loss in consequence of these errors on the part of the Post Office.

Mr. Marples: Of the 60,000 amendments which were made to this directory, 68 major errors and 30 minor ones have been reported. I am very sorry that these mistakes have been made and the inconvenience they have caused.
As soon as the mistakes were brought to notice we did all we could to reduce the inconvenience, and I am now arranging

for a directory supplement to be issued. I could not justify the payment of financial compensation.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his helpful reply, may I ask him to take steps to avoid a repetition of these unfortunate mistakes in the future, because they cause serious financial hardship to those affected?

Mr. Marples: We shall certainly take all possible steps to do so, and I have myself asked for a report.

Mr. Ross: May we be told the cost to the Post Office?

Mr. Marples: Six hundred pounds.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Hutton Lane Estate, Guisborough (Sub-Office)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now reconsider his decision not to authorise a new sub-post office on the Hutton Lane Estate, Guisborough, in view of the further representations made by the local authority and residents.

Mr. Marples: I have considered this matter again very carefully but I am sorry I should not be justified in authorising an office.

Mr. Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman sometimes boast that the Post Office has not been the same since he took over? In those circumstances, could not he show a little more flexibility of mind in the provision of sub-post offices?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman has any further evidence to submit to me, I will look at it again; but, in the light of evidence already submitted, I would say that there are other places which would deserve a sub-post office before the place in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

El Adem (Amenities)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to provide adequate amenities and recreational facilities at the Royal Air Force Station, El Adem.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): We shall be making a start on a building programme at El Adem very soon. The programme includes, among other things, the extension of three messes, a new airmen's club, and a swimming pool. Meanwhile, existing club rooms are being improved and augmented.

Mr. Wall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply. Will he look particularly into the question of amenities for warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s, which I understand are very sub-standard?

Mr. Ward: Yes, that is part of our programme.

London Airport (Unidentified Light)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the official reports received at the Air Ministry about the pale yellow disc which recently hovered in the sky over London Airport for 20 minutes; and what observations were made of it on the radar screens.

Mr. Ward: A pale yellow light was seen by officials at London Airport above one of the runways from 7.25 to 7.45 on the evening of 25th February. There was no corresponding response on the airport radars or on air defence radars. The light was not identified.

Mr. de Freitas: Should not the Secretary of State's Department have pointed out that there were natural conditions which could quite easily have led to this apparition, and not have given, by implication, the idea that there was some Martian saucer hovering and waiting for permission to land?

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).

Mr. Ward: There was insufficient evidence to determine what the cause of this light could have been.

Rocket Range, South Uist

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Air the total and the average amount of compensation payable to crofters in respect of loss of land and other adverse effects resulting from the establishment of the South Uist Rocket Range.

Mr. Ward: The amount awarded to South Uist crofters by the Scottish Land Court was £1,889. Reductions of rent were also granted amounting to £127 a year. Awards of £461 and £652 were made to crofters on North Uist and Benbecula. As the details are somewhat lengthy I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these awards of compensation are regarded as about the most miserable and conservative ever awarded by the Scottish Land Court in respect of loss of land and part-loss of livelihood? Will the Air Ministry itself, in the interests of good public relations and justice, consider making some supplementary award to the crofters affected, who are affected for the rest of their lives by this intrusion?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. It has all along been understood and agreed by all concerned that claims arising from the resumption of land would be referred to the Scottish Land Court. This has been done and the Court has issued its award.

Following are the details:


South Uist
£


Award for 565 acres of common grazing shared by 75 crofters
750


Award for 524 acres of common grazing shared by 20 crofters
660


Award for 8½ acres of arable land from five crofts
261


Disturbance allowances
218


Reduction of rent
127 p.a.


North Uist



Disturbance allowances
461


Benbecula



Award for 7 acres of arable land from one croft (including disturbance allowance)
530


Other disturbance allowances
122

Air Ministry Messengers (Top Secret Documents)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what grade of civilian Air Ministry employees are employed as couriers to carry top secret documents by train.

Mr. Ward: Top secret documents are not normally sent by train, but where this is unavoidable they are carried by Air Ministry messengers.

Mr. de Freitas: Is not it a fact that Air Ministry messengers are men of the industrial grade, who have to travel second class? Would not it be a good idea for the Ministry to follow the example of the War Office and upgrade these men and allow them to travel in better conditions?

Mr. Ward: These men belong to a non-industrial grade, and no cases are on record in the past ten years of top secret documents being lost by the messenger service.

Mr. de Freitas: That is not the point. Is it not a fact that in the ordinary course of duty messengers who are paid and graded as industrial have to carry top secret documents when, in the other Services, similar men are given the status, pay and conditions of non-industrial grades?

Mr. Ward: I shall look into that point, but we have had no difficulty about this matter.

Captain Pilkington: Is second class less respectable than first class?

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that that is a most nonsensical remark? This has nothing to do with whether first class is more respectable or not; it is merely the fact that first class carriages are usually less crowded than second class carriages, and if men are dealing with top secret documents it is right that they should have that status.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Land (Disposal)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the British Transport Commission's inquiry into the possibility of the sale of such of its land as is not at present used for purposes of its undertaking, what further consideration he has given to proposals for the disposal of the whole of the Commission's railway undertaking, other than the permanent way itself, thus assimilating rail transport with trunk-road road transport.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): It has always been the Commission's policy to dispose of land not likely to be required for the

purposes of its undertaking, and it has therefore made no special inquiry.
No proposals on the other point raised by the hon. Member have been put to us.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing public dissatisfaction with the operation of the railways as a nationalised undertaking? Is he also aware that there can scarcely be more dissatisfaction among the employees, who are threatening to strike because they are convinced that they are 20 per cent. underpaid? Is my hon. Friend further aware that if rail transport were relieved of the upkeep of the permanent way, in the same way as road transport is relieved of the upkeep of the roads, it could be run as an efficient service under public enterprise?

Mr. Nugent: I do not think that shifting the cost of maintaining the permanent way would be a solution. There are bound to be complaints until the modernisation process has been completed, but the upward trend of passenger traffics over recent months seems to give some indication contrary to what my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the Minister point out to his hon. Friend that the difficulties with which the railways are confronted are due entirely to Government policy? Secondly, is not it regrettable that his hon. Friend has only now come round to the point of view that the integration of road and rail transport is necessary? Will the Minister ask his hon. Friend whether he voted against the denationalisation of the road haulage industry, which is responsible for the limitation of integration?

Mr. Nugent: As the Government are responsible for financing the modernisation of OUT railways, I think that the hon. Members' supplementary question is out of place.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bridge Street, Andover (Traffic)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give the average number of cars passing through Bridge Street, Andover, A.303, per hour, during daylight last August, or such other figures as any traffic census during the summer may have yielded.

Mr. Nugent: No census of traffic has been taken in Bridge Street, Andover. A census was, however, taken as part of the 1958 census at a point some 5½ miles east of the centre of Andover. An average number of 2,506 cars per day of sixteen hours was recorded.

Mr. Freeth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of cars passing through this very busy thoroughfare on their way to the West, particularly at weekends, is causing increasing dislocation and congestion in the main street of Andover, especially as, following the introduction of diesel trains on the Andover-Romsey line, the level crossing gates are now closed for far longer periods than ever before?

Mr. Nugent: Naturally, as more traffic passes through Andover there is greater congestion there. I am well aware of the difficulty at the level crossing, but I do not understand why diesel trains should cause greater difficulty.

Mr. Freeth: The service is more frequent.

Vehicle Tests

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation his intentions, in connection with compulsory testing of vehicles, with regard to the authorisation of brake-testing on public roads; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: An applicant for appointment as authorised examiner has to state what public roads, if any, he intends to use for vehicle testing. No appointments will be made unless our technical officers are satisfied that the roads proposed, or others nearby, can be used for testing without danger or undue inconvenience to the public and to other traffic.

Mr. Page: Does not it involve grave danger and inconvenience to traffic if brake testing takes place on public roads? Is there any shortage of brake-testing instruments within the testing garages?

Mr. Nugent: Brake testing is already carried out as a normal practice on many roads. Provided the road is carefully selected the danger will not be serious.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the delay of nearly three years in the introduction of the general testing of vehicles under the 1956 Act, which is likely to be further

postponed, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to write up in large letters, in his room, a notice to the effect that for every week that this road testing is postponed ten additional lives are unnecessarily lost on our roads?

Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not accept that there has been any unreasonable delay. We have gone ahead with this scheme with all speed. It is a most complicated scheme. We have already inspected over 10,000 garages, and we are well ahead with the programme. We are hoping to have this scheme started in the summer.

Road Safety Campaign

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in view of the increase in road accidents in 1958, if he will give details of road safety campaigns arranged for 1959 to promote safety on the roads.

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. Our Ministry and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, in collaboration, are making arrangements for a major road safety campaign on the theme "Be a Better Driver". The campaign will be launched by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of London, for whose valuable help we are most grateful, at a meeting in the Guildhall on 20th April, and it will be directed initially to the development and encouragement of the techniques of safer driving. During the summer months special emphasis will be given to the safety of children on the roads. I am glad to say that we are receiving substantial help and co-operation from a number of national organisations in this campaign, and we will welcome and make use of any offers of help which come to us from whatever quarter.

Mr. Hunter: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether local authorities will be invited to take part in this campaign?

Mr. Nugent: Very much so. The Lord Mayor's meeting is primarily to invite the lord mayors and mayors of boroughs throughout the country, and the chairmen of county councils as well. My right hon. Friend will be writing to the chairmen of other local authorities. We certainly shall count upon the thousands of road safety committees in the country to take a very active part in this campaign.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Severn Bridge

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will advance the date for the authorisation of the Severn Bridge project, including the approach roads.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to authorise the building of the Severn Bridge; and on what date he expects work thereon, and on the approach roads thereto, to commence.

Mr. Nugent: For technical reasons the building of the bridges across the Forth and the Severn is planned as a single co-ordinated operation. The date for beginning work on the Severn Bridge is linked, therefore, with progress of work on the Forth Bridge. Construction of the approach roads cannot be begun until an Order under Section 3 of the Special Roads Act, 1949, dealing with roads and accesses affected by the approach roads has been made and the land needed has been acquired. We hope to publish the draft Order this year.

Mr. Gower: May I say that I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that because the two bridge building operations are related, nothing can be done to speed the construction of the approach roads and that I hope he will give an assurance that this will be done much more quickly than has yet been envisaged?

Mr. Nugent: It cannot be done more quickly than I have indicated. We have the plans of the consulting engineers for these roads almost ready, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 12th February. As soon as the Order is published the statutory procedure has to be gone through which might involve objections from property owners, local author ties and other interests concerned. Naturally, we must deal with these in a proper democratic way.

Mr. Corfield: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the employment situation in the Bristol area, and also that this is one of the types of work which could relieve that situation without in any way affecting parts of the country where the actual figures for unemployment happen to be higher?

Mr. Nugent: We certainly have that consideration very much in mind with regard to our road programmes and, indeed, in relation to this area. Nevertheless, the statutory procedure for laying down the line of this road and acquiring the necessary property must be gone through in the ordinary way.

Markings (White Lines)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that on a stretch of the Al road there are single, double and triple dotted lines, single, double and triple continuous lines, a dotted line between two continuous lines, a continuous line between two dotted lines, a continuous line alongside a dotted line, and a dot-dash line; whether he will explain their significance and their respective contributions to road safety; and what consideration he has given to the need to standardise road markings.

Mr. Nugent: Some local authorities have laid down double white line markings which are not standard practice. We have given instructions for putting right these markings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend hope to lay before Parliament in the near future regulations which will standardise markings on the new system, and full publicity will be given to the meaning of each part of the system.

Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to maintain ten different variations of markings on this five-mile stretch of road? Have any of these markings been explained in the Highway Code?

Mr. Nugent: They will be, in the new issue of the Highway Code which we shall be bringing before Parliament shortly. In the meantime, they will be fully explained when we bring the regulations before the House. What has happened in the case to which the hon. Member refers is that there has been confusion, because old markings were not obliterated before new ones were put down.

Mr. Ernest Davies: When the regulations have been laid before the House, may we take it that it will be mandatory to abide by the markings on the roads?

Mr. Nugent: Most certainly.

BERLIN

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he consulted the Governments of the United States of America and France before reaching agreement with Mr. Khrushchev that the Berlin situation should be settled by negotiation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As is made clear by the Notes sent by the three Governments to the Soviet Union on 31st December, all the Allies agree that the Berlin situation should be settled by negotiation.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the hostile reactions in some Western capitals to the proposals outlined in the Anglo-Soviet communiqué, will the Prime Minister make clear that he stands firmly by the principle that the problems of Germany and Berlin and European security can, and must, be settled by negotiations based on mutual concessions?

The Prime Minister: I know of no hostile reaction, and I am better placed to analyse it than the hon. Gentleman.

UNITED KINGDOM AND U.S.S.R. (JOINT DECLARATION)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister why he proposed to the Soviet leaders a joint declaration of peaceful intentions in preference to the proposal for a solemn pact of non-aggression between the West and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which he put forward on 4th January, 1958.

The Prime Minister: I put this forward because I thought a short and simple declaration was something we might do together without delay. A more general and comprehensive pact would require a longer period to arrange.

Mr. Swingler: Did not the Prime Minister put forward a proposal, in January, 1958, for a non-aggression pact between the N.A.T.O. Powers in Western Europe and the Soviet Union, whereas the present proposal is merely for an Anglo-Soviet declaration of peaceful intentions? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his original proposal for an agreement involving all the Western Powers in some security guarantee with the Soviet Union is the better proposal?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but that may well come at the end of the successful negotiations which I hope will result. Meanwhile, I thought it would be quite a good thing to do something between the Soviet Union and ourselves.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: is the Prime Minister aware that I heard him deliver nine speeches in the Soviet Union and that they got better as they went on, and I was afraid that when he returned be would be expelled by the Conservative Party? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government will be as good as the speeches which he made in Russia?

The Prime Minister: I observed the hon. Gentleman at these various meetings. I did not quite know whether he was present as a Member of Parliament or as a journalist. I think he had what one might call temporary rank as a journalist. But I am glad he liked my speeches, and I am glad that we are back again to interchange our Questions and Answers.

SUMMIT MEETING

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if, in his discussions in Paris, Bonn, and Washington, he will make a proposal for a date and place for a summit meeting, to be put forward to the Soviet leaders.

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to anticipate or reveal the course of these private discussions.

Mr. Swingler: Is it a fact that the majority of the Western Powers and the Soviet Union have now declared in principle in favour of a summit meeting? Therefore, whether there is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers or not, what stands in the way of proposing the date and place for a summit meeting?

The Prime Minister: I have heard some talk of a summit meeting, and I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: While appreciating that the Prime Minister is not in a position, in the middle of these discussions, to tell us much about them, may I ask whether he can give us any idea of what procedure he envisages when he has finished


his consultations in Bonn and Washington? Are there then to be diplomatic exchanges between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union regarding the date of the Foreign Ministers' conference, or what exactly may we expect after that?

The Prime Minister: I would hope that we might make an agreed reply to the last Soviet Note, either before then or at the end of my visits.

BRITISH INDUSTRY (UNITED STATES CONTRACTS)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Prime Minister if, during his visit to the United States of America, he will discuss with President Eisenhower the question of the discriminatory trade practices of United States firms against British industry.

The Prime Minister: My discussions with the President will be private and I should prefer not to anticipate their course. But if my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the controversy about imports of heavy electrical plant, I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government have already made their views abundantly clear and will not hesitate to press them upon the United States Government.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all thinking people in this country desire the closest partnership for defensive purposes with the Americans, but that there is increasing concern, and even bitterness, regarding the unscrupulous and unprincipled business tactics of the Americans, sometimes connived at by Washington, at a time when Britain has liberalised her trade at the behest of the Americans?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of strong feeling in this country. I have not failed, and shall not fail, to press our point of view strongly upon the United States.

Mr. Jay: Would not it be a good idea if, instead of making unilateral concessions to the United States, as they have over machine tools and legacy property, the Government were first to get concessions in return on such matters as these contracts and oil?

The Prime Minister: We buy machine tools because we need them for our business.

BRITISH FORCES, CYPRUS (SENTENCES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the amnesty granted to Cypriots convicted of offences, he will instruct all the Service Departments to grant similar treatment to officers and other ranks who, because of offences committed during service in Cyprus, have been sentenced to imprisonment or demoted.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, I will answer Question No. 71.
I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the feelings which have prompted this Question. But after most careful consideration, I am convinced that the course proposed would be neither desirable nor practicable.
During the three and a half years' emergency in Cyprus, our forces have shown remarkable restraint and steadiness in the face of considerable provocation, for which they have been rightly praised in this House.
Troops engaged on security duties overseas have a difficult and delicate task which demands the most exacting standards of personal behaviour, and the Services are rightly jealous of the high reputation they have established.
Almost without exception those now serving sentences of detention or imprisonment for offences committed in Cyprus are men found guilty of ordinary breaches of discipline or honesty which might just as well have been committed anywhere else. When I say that they are almost without exception I must safeguard myself. In fact, I have not so far been able to trace any man who is at present serving a sentence for an offence directly attributable to the emergency. Therefore, apart from the issue of principle, the question of an amnesty does not, in practice, arise.

Mr. Shinwell: While expressing my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for


his consideration of this matter, and my agreement with what he has said about the demeanour and general behaviour of our troops in Cyprus during the emergency, and, at the same time, appreciating the difficulties about an amnesty for those who have been demoted, cashiered or dismissed the Service, as the case may be, may I ask, having regard to the general amnesty which has been granted for the Cypriots who have committed very grave crimes, whether, in logic, something ought not to be done to mitigate the sentences imposed on our men?
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, at any rate, to review the sentences that have been imposed on our troops in Cyprus for offences committed or any breach of military discipline? Will not that be conceded? Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to that?

Mr. Sandys: I understand, naturally, the generous impulse of the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were still in my job he would, having thought the matter over, come to the same conclusion. As I have explained, I have not been able to trace any case where men are now serving sentences for offences committed in Cyprus and connected with the emergency.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to take it, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the ordinary procedure of reviewing court-martial sentences, which takes place from time to time, will not be prejudiced? If possible, will the individual circumstances of the men concerned be taken into account by those who carry out the review?

Mr. Sandys: Of course, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is something to be said in these circumstances for expediting the review of sentences which have been imposed? We are well aware that the review takes place in ordinary conditions, but are not these conditions abnormal? Would not the right hon. Gentleman hurry on with some of the reviews of the sentences that have been imposed? Will he not accept that?

Mr. Sandys: The ordinary procedure will be maintained. If there are any delays which the right hon. Gentleman has

to complain of, perhaps he will address his complaints to the Service Departments concerned?

TELEPHONE SERVICE

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to announce a further step towards a better telephone service.
In this age of mechanisation we must never forget the importance of the human personal service. We have studied how other countries are tackling this problem. A Report has been made to me by a joint team of Post Office officials and trade union representatives after a visit to the United States. They were unanimous in their conclusions and they made important and far-reaching recommendations. Some will require further study; others are being acted on from today. All are set out in a foreword to the Report. I have placed a copy of the Report in the Library. In addition, I have written every Member explaining our proposals and enclosing a copy of the Report.
For the first time the aim and purpose of the telephone service has been defined in writing. The essence of it is that we are determined to please as well as serve the customer. We are tackling three things immediately: First, to find out what the customer really wishes, we have set in train a series of methodical and regular surveys of public opinion. Then we shall try to meet those wishes. Secondly, our rules for the telephonist have been rigid and the words we have told them to use have been stilted. The rules will be altered and among the alterations will be one that gives the telephonist greater freedom to help the customer and to be more friendly. Thirdly, we are going to make special efforts to develop facilities desired by the customer and an organisation will be set up for that purpose.
This is only the first instalment. Other action will follow later. All this constitutes a radical change in the attitude of the Post Office to the telephone service. I hope that when Members have studied my letter and the unanimous Report they will approve of what we are doing.

Mr. Ness Edwards: May I express the hope that the letter to which the right


hon. Gentleman has referred will tell us much more than the right hon. Gentleman's statement? We are very pleased to see that the Joint Productivity Council, set up by my immediate predecessor, has been used for the purpose of seeing what has happened in other countries, and we are very gratified that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to put its Report in the Library.
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's idea of having regular surveys, but I hope that he will have more respect for the result of those surveys than he has had for the one recently referred to at Question Time. I cannot quite see how operators are to be more helpful in an automatised system, because they will not be there. The system will be completely automatic.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to improve relations between telephone subscribers and the Post Office, the easiest and quickest way of doing so, if it is possible, is to reduce the size of the bill they get at the end of each six months.

Sir T. Moore: Sour grapes.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not sour grapes. I was sorry to see that this statement is supposed to represent a radical change in the Post Office. I thought that the general intention in the statement had been the general intention of the right hon. Gentleman and all his predecessors. May I ask that when we get the next statement the right hon. Gentleman will give us something much more substantial than is contained in this one?

Mr. Marples: Time will show whether it will be substantial. I am quite certain that with the co-operation and enthusiasm that the unions have shown in co-operation with the management on this occasion this will be a really radical change; and that is the view of the unions in this respect. The Joint Productivity Council was not used on this occasion. It was a special four-man team that I appointed.
The operators will always be there in the telephone service because as automation increases they will be important not for dealing with the ordinary calls, b it with difficult and frustrated callers, the people who want assistance, and to that we are giving attention. I think that the right hon. Member and the public will be surprised by what will happen in the next few months.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General aware that I and some of my hon. Friends are very pleased to know that there has been this joint effort on the part of the official and staff sides, that the Post Office has encouraged one or two prominent members of the trade union concerned to join the team which went to the United States of America, and that we on this side of the House will always welcome a joint effort to improve the services of the Post Office, as we would any other service?
Secondly, may I ask whether the Postmaster-General is aware that telephonists, as well as members of all other Post Office grades, will be glad to be released from the bondage of those stilted operational phrases? I am quite sure they will enthusiastically respond to this new approach. If they used some of the language which is used towards them by members of the public, there would be many complaints made in this House.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is very knowledgeable in these matters. We have had three trial exchanges. I can assure him that the telephonists are delighted at the new freedom and are co-operating wholeheartedly. This has really been a model of combined operations, because the management and unions have combined together, first, to make the policy and, secondly, to carry it out. We are doing this as a combined operation and I believe that it will be very successful because of that. I am extremely grateful to the unions which not only have co-operated, but have shown very great enthusiasm.

Mr. Mawby: Will my right hon. Friend say whether this new approach will be applied to all Post Office staff in time?

Mr. Marples: This, quite frankly, is just a start. Afterwards, we shall turn our attention to other matters in the Post Office, because it is a vast organisation with a great team spirit. I have already discussed the question of Post Office counters with the trade unions concerned and I have no reason to think that they will not be just as co-operative and helpful on that as an this matter.

Mr. John Edwards: While welcoming the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman as an example of that joint co-operation to which I, in my time, devoted a great deal of attention, may I


ask whether, as about 60,000 people are deprived of the service because cable or equipment is not available and I believe that over 1 million subscribers are sharing lines, the greatest step forward would not be to have a very much bigger capital programme so as to speed up the service to those people?

Mr. Marples: That is a very important question, but it is not relevant to this exercise because what we are doing here is to make improvements for those who have got telephones. I agree that it would be very nice to have unlimited capital investment, but during the past year the waiting list has been reduced from ¼ million to 68,000.

GHANA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Mr. Speaker, a Motion was proposed by the Leader of the House on 4th February that leave of absence be given to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Ghana.
We were accompanied by Mr. T. G. B. Cocks, Second Clerk-Assistant of the House, and we should like to place on record our best thanks to him for his valuable services. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton was taken ill in Ghana and is still absent from the House. I am sure that we send him our sympathy and regret that he is not able to do this pleasant duty of reporting back this afternoon.
After speeches by the right hon. Member and myself, the Prime Minister of

Ghana replied. We then presented the Chair to the National Assembly of Ghana. The programme was carried out in conformity with the arrangements previously made, except for one incident. Towards the end of the ceremony, the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues left the Government benches and placed the Speaker's Chair in position. They then gently hoisted the Speaker into the Chair.
During our visit we were shown every courtesy and kindness and we take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to all in Ghana who showed that kindness to us. It was most pleasing to see Africans and Europeans working together in amity and complete trust. There was no sign at all of racialism. I hope that this is a happy augury for the future of the whole of Africa.
The Ghana National Assembly, upon the Motion of the Prime Minister, seconded by an Independent Member, carried unanimously the following Resolution:
We, the Speaker and Members of the National Assembly of Ghana in Parliament assembled, express our most sincere thanks to the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the Speaker's Chair which it has presented to this House.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with precedent, will give the necessary instructions for this Resolution to appear in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I will give those instructions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING (recommitted) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th March].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)

Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 12, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of section Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (England and Wales)) of this Act"—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I was encouraged by the time taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech on this Amendment on 4th March, to hope to lay before him and the Minister one or two more considerations which he might bear in mind when trying to find, as we were led to hope he would, a formula which could be incorporated in the Bill, perhaps, in another place. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have not been too much deterred by the onslaught upon them by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and what he called an essential principle of this Amendment.
The hon. Member for Crosby spoke of the difficulties of small landlords, but he spoke in such a way as to provoke the indignation of some of my hon. Friends, who pointed out that in many of these cases it is not a small landlord at all but a large financial organisation which is responsible for the ownership and maintenance of houses which may be the subject of these grants. None the less, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that the problem of the small landlord is a serious problem. Indeed, it is one of the most intractable problems in houses let under private ownership.
Most people must be aware of isolated instances in which two or three houses are owned by one elderly person who has no other resources. This is a phenomenon which crops up more frequently in some parts of the country than in others. It crops up where the ownership of houses

has been part of the pattern of working-class savings and perhaps part of the pattern of saving for retirement by small traders and small professional people. The problem becomes acute when, perhaps late in the life of the legatee for whom these savings were intended to make provision, it no longer becomes possible—or apparently so—for the legatee to find the necessary resources to keep these houses in repair. This is a commonly understood problem.
I should like to say a word in support of another character—the honest estate agent. I refer here, in particular, to the estate agent who is often left to manage these pitifully small estates, who is constantly being asked by the tenants to carry out some highly desirable repairs but who always has to say that he will have a "word with the old lady" when he knows perfectly well that there is no money available for the work and that the amount which he can allow for maintenance when he makes his quarterly settlement is pitifully small.
We must all be aware that we need some machinery to inject the necessary extra capital in order to carry out these repairs, but I think that the Minister has that in his hands already. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there might be some difficulty in recovering the money, but I observe that the Minister has been most careful in drawing up Clause 12, which makes provision for the rent of a dwelling to be increased after such an improvement, and that he has paid attention to the fact that there is a new situation following the coming into operation of the Rent Act. It is laid down in Clause 12 that
if it appears to the local authority reasonable so to do, having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, to the rents payable for similar dwellings in their area with respect to which no limit or condition is imposed by the Rent Act, 1957, or the Act of 1958, they may, on approving the application, fix such higher rent for those purposes as they think reasonable.
That assumes that there will be a stabilised fair rent in the new circumstances which will be easily assessed by the local authority. I have always supposed that the provisions for increasing the rents were calculated on an arithmetical basis which allowed for the repayment over a period of years of the money invested in the improvement. I


am sure that, in general, that is the principle and that it could be applied in this case.
I should like the Minister to realise that although this may be small it is, nevertheless, an important aspect of the problem, that it is a long-standing problem with which we are all well acquainted but that there is a new situation as a result of the decontrolled rents which gives him an opportunity to look at the matter again and to consider whether the local authority, in putting up the money, would be able to recover it through the machinery of the increased rent in the same way as it already recovers it where it carries out repairs under orders made after an inspection by a sanitary inspector.
That would be an immense help for the managing agent whom I have mentioned. At present, he can only ask the landlord whether he would mind carrying out the improvements, whereas if the Amendment were carried there would be a legal obligation, if it were so framed, and the agent could explain to the landlord that the improvements would be carried out through the medium of the increased rent.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that these were not necessities, but only amenities, but what is an amenity in one case is often a necessity in another case. What is an amenity in one case may be the kind of improvement which would make the difference in an overcrowded tenement between life being tolerable and life being not tolerable. May I give an example which came to my notice in Paddington? It concerned an old lady living in two rooms at the top of a tenement house. As she grew older she found it more and more onerous to go downstairs—true it was only nine stairs—to fetch water. She did not know how much longer she would be able to do this without help, and she applied to the landlord to extend the water supply up the nine steps so that she could continue to live in those two rooms. She had no desire to leave and to occupy another flat. Her furniture was not abundant, but it was large and was best left where it was.
I passed that case to a Conservative alderman of Paddington Borough Council who I knew took a very close interest in

the problem of rehousing old people. I offered it to him as the kind of riddle which ought to be capable of a solution. I know that he took it very seriously. He saw the old lady, the landlord and the local authority, but apparently there was no way of carrying out that simple addition to the amenities by carrying a water pipe up nine steps. Under the provisions suggested in the Amendment that kind of thing could easily be done.
I suggest to the Minister that if the provisions of the Amendment extend the machinery through which the local authority can assist in improving the amenities of old houses they will fill what is at present a very serious gap concerning a type of house to which I hope the Minister will be able to pay attention. I refer to the house which has been scheduled under town planning schemes or included in a slum clearance plan which is not to be carried out immediately but which is dated for five, ten or fifteen years' time.
There are cases in which the fundamental reconstruction of a house or the extensive repair to walls and roofs or chimneys, or the inclusion of new damp courses, would be out of the question without demolition or would be inordinately expensive. In any case, the local authorities might run themselves into the legal difficulty that if a house is made habitable up to proper standards, when the time comes to acquire it the owner has to be paid compensation at market value instead of site value. This is beginning to be a very serious problem in some parts of London.
4.0 p.m.
I glanced at an evening paper before coming into the debate, and I saw a headline which says that, as part of the search for a missing person, the police are making a search of 500 empty houses in Paddington. There ought not to be 500 empty houses in Paddington, of course. There is something wrong with the process by which this designation and clearance system works.
I have another example which I intended to ask the Minister to investigate. It arose from a fire which took place in my constituency about a fortnight ago, at No. 1, Amberley Road, Paddington. This is a classic example of the sort of house which many people consider ought to have been pulled down many


years ago. It is part of a plan, and it is said that the property is to be demolished and the houses rebuilt in four or five years' time.
In the meantime, things are happening which ought not to happen, and I think that if the provisions of this Amendment were carried into effect there might be a means by which the local authority could still help in making life at least tolerable in these houses in the slum clearance areas, and without committing the local authority to reconstructing them completely and putting itself into a position in which it would have to pay high compensation.
As a result of the fire at No. 1, Amberley Road, a fortnight ago, one life was lost on the top floor. A young woman was asphyxiated. The fire was caused by a child turning over an oil stove on the ground floor. In all probability, there is no other way of heating that house, because the chimneys—and I have had examples of this in other houses in the same street—are in such a bad state that smoke comes out into the living rooms of the houses next door. I am submitting that some improvements, even the inclusion of gas or electric fires which could be paid for out of the rent fund during these few remaining years of the lease, would be well worth considering in order to make life tolerable, and would also be safer, because nobody comes very well out of this matter.
At the inquest, the coroner asked the fire brigade officer whether he had anything to say to the public, and, reading between the lines, one could sense the embarrassment of the fire brigade officer, who did not know what to say. I know that he knows that smoke comes from that house into the house next door, and I also know that following the fire there was an investigation to find out the cause of a second alarm which the fire brigade received. It was thought that the first fire was still burning. Some of the tenants in No. 2 called the fire brigade again, and the brigade found that the smoke was not coming from the house where the fire had occurred, but was coming through from No. 3, the house on the other side, where a coal fire had been lighted in the fireplace, and from which smoke came through the cracked walls into No. 2.
These are the sort of houses which a few years ago were held on leases by small owners, to whom the hon. Member for Crosby referred. They are characters like "old Annie", who was quite well known in the road for her habit of hoarding waste paper and rubbish and the way in which she managed her house in her own way. She has now disappeared, and someone has been selling the freeholds of these houses at some astonishing prices. When there were about ten years to go on the lease, the leases were being sold for £100 or £200, but I now find that these houses are selling at £700, £800 or £900 each.
I am not quite certain what is being sold, but the Grand Junction Canal Company is selling them through a firm of estate agents, Messrs. Hooper & Jackson. No. 1 was sold to a West Indian for £700, but what was sold I am not sure. Whether they sold the freeholds with a sort of "go ahead" on the understanding that the leaseholder was not to be found, and that the head lessee had disappeared, and, therefore, they had a very good case to make whatever use of the house they could during the period between the sale and the demolition under the slum clearance order, I do not know, but I take it that it is something like that.
The lessee has disappeared and also the head lessee. The Grand Junction Canal Company is now selling the freeholds, and somebody is getting far too much money for them. They are now emerging in the ownership of people who are not always without substance. One of the houses is owned by a perfectly respectable hotel keeper, who has done his best by redecoration and improvements of the installations to make the houses habitable, for the very sensible reason that, although he takes rather high rents from his tenants, he does want them to stay. He does not want them to disappear in a few weeks, which is increasingly the kind of thing which happens in these ruined and condemned areas.
It is clear that where people buy these houses for occupation themselves, or where they buy Them to rent, they often try very sincerely to improve the decorations and make it possible for people to live decently in the houses, but there is a big gap in legislation in the powers of the local authorities, and this gap ought to be filled. I hope that the Minister


will take this opportunity to look at this problem between now and the time when he will decide what he can do about the principle of the Amendments.
I am sure that this problem is likely to get rather worse during the period between now and the time when these slum clearances are completed in the London area. This is a situation out of which nobody comes with any particular credit, either the freeholders, the local authorities or the planners. It seems to be a situation in which a decision has been made that slum clearance will take place at some date in the future which is not very precisely specified, and everybody walks by on the other side, saying that this is a matter about which they can do nothing. Yet it is a problem which could be solved. It has reached a state where people's lives have been in danger. I would not appeal too emotionally, but I would press on the Minister soberly the fact that this is one aspect of a complicated problem which I think he will be able to look at again and perhaps find a solution on the lines suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The object of this Amendment is to enable tenants to get standard amenities, as they are called, into their houses, and to recover the cost from the immediate landlord or from the owners of the houses.
The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that we must not conclude that his right hon. Friend the Minister had any objection whatever to it in principle, and he then proceeded to raise other objections, which led him to the conclusion that it was unworkable. I am glad to say that the Clause was, apparently, clear enough. The first objection was the impecunious landlord, whose appearance I had expected.
What we have to consider first is the relation between these two parts of the Bill, and when this was put to the Parliamentary Secretary his answer was to suggest that the building societies would not make advances. He said:
I do not think that the building societies would make advances for these old houses—the two-up and two-down—in the class of case that we are discussing, that is to say, the small tenanted houses let mainly at a controlled rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 506.]

One would assume from that that the building society provisions under the earlier part of the Bill were not intended to apply to that type of case—the small, older house let at a controlled rent, but, when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing the Bill on Second Reading he seems to me to have said the opposite. After referring to the £1,800 house, he said:
He need not spend nearly as much as this, because outside London, at any rate, there are good sound houses, built before 1919, available at £1,000 or under, which will be within the reach of almost anyone who really wants to own his house. If it is one of the older houses, by the Bill the Government are seeing to it that the building societies will no longer say, as they constantly have to say now, 'Sorry, we have not got enough money to meet all demands'.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
The Government are rendering their new Measures to encourage house ownership still more attractive by linking them with facilities for improving the houses and by putting in requirements which everybody nowadays accepts should be part of any house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December. 1958: Vol. 597, c. 796–7.]
It is, apparently, intended that the building society advances should be towards the purchase of small, old houses. Presumably, if a building society will advance for the purchase of such a house it will also advance for its improvement. Indeed, to call it an improvement is rather an exaggeration.
I adopt what the Minister said, that these are things that
… everyone now accepts … should be part of any house.
Today we are considering what is the right course if the landlord says that he cannot afford to put in the improvements. My first answer is that I do not accept the proposition that one cannot get an advance from a building society, but, if one does get it, what is the conclusion? Does one leave the house indefinitely in a condition in which it should not be—and which the Bill is intended to remedy—simply because the landlord cannot pay for the improvements?
Nothing could illustrate better the difference of attitude towards landlords adopted by the two sides of the Committee. Our view is that to be a landlord nowadays entails responsibility; that those responsibilities go beyond receiving rent, and that if a landlord cannot keep his house in decent condition and put


in those things that everybody admits should be part of a house, he had better sell it and, the tenant remaining there, pass it on to someone who can afford to do it.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know very well that I do not regard that as a final solution. If the houses are owned by landlords who cannot afford to put them in decent condition the sooner those properties go to the municipality the better. That is why we advocate the municipalising of these rent-controlled houses. For the purposes of the Bill, however, we could not go so far as that, because t can see no reason why the building societies should not advance the money.
Let us look at the tenant's position. If the tenant puts up the money, as he would have to in the first place, he has to get it out of the landlord. He will not take the chance of not getting it out of the landlord if he knows that the landlord cannot, in fact, afford it. There is another aspect of the tenant's position. He will not ask for these improvements unless he really wants them, because he knows quite well that these improvements will result in an increase in rent. We must regard the tenant as being a sensible person.
We all know that there are tenants all over the country who do work on houses that they are under no contract obligation to do. They maintain them when the landlord should be doing so. They effect improvements—those necessary things of which we are talking today—that the landlord should effect. It is absurd to provide that the landlord should be able to act in that way, and not to give the tenant any right to get it done. We can trust the tenant not to spend his own money on it if he cannot afford it, and if he knows—or even suspects—that the landlord cannot pay.
4.15 p.m.
The second objection was that as the tenant's consent has to be obtained for a standard improvement put in by the landlord we should get the landlord's consent before the tenant is allowed to ask for it. That is a monstrous proposition. The tenant is the man who is living there. It is he who has to use the bath, the hot water supply and the rest. Why should he get those things that form part of every

house—to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said—only when the landlord allows him?
Where are we getting in the relations that concern people's homes? By every social right, at any rate, the tenant is entitled to get this done. It is quite reasonable to leave it to the tenant to omit to claim in cases where he knows that the landlord cannot pay, and will not sell—if there are many such cases, and I doubt it—and, in all other cases to get the money back from the owner of the property who is to benefit by an increased rent and, if he chooses to sell later, by an increased purchase price.
For that reason, we on this side think that the new Clause not only has the good intention which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to attribute to it; is not only—as I understand from the passage I have quoted—unobjectionable in principle, but is also perfectly workable in practice, and that the result will be to get done a number of improvements that landlords, at present, simply do not choose to do.
Not all landlords are models of virtue. I have never said that they were all models of vice, but they are not all models of virtue, and many of them prefer to treat the investment that, from their point of view, the house represents, as something into which they will not put more money. In those cases, the result is that the house does not get modernised even to this very limited extent, and the tenant suffers. Social justice entitles us to say that our proposition should be accepted. There is nothing substantially wrong with it, and every ground of moral justice, good sense or the improvement of the stock of houses supports it.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am sorry that the debate on this group of Amendments and new Clauses was interrupted a week ago, because, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said then, this is an interesting proposal, and one that deserves serious consideration by the Committee. On that occasion I listened to the speeches with interest, and I have done so again today.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) clearly supports these proposals strongly, though I thought that


his speech went considerably beyond them, as he appeared to have in mind houses that were under threat of demolition within five or ten years on either slum clearance or planning grounds; whereas he will recollect that Clause 5 lays down that the standard grant will be given only where the local authority is satisfied that the house is not unfit for human habitation, and is likely to remain in that condition, and available for use as a dwelling, for a period of not less than fifteen years.
Further, it is the standard grant to which these new Clauses apply, and the standard grant system does not extend to such things as putting in electric or gas fires, and other items to which he referred—

Mr. Parkin: What I had in mind in suggesting to the Minister that there was a gap in the Bill was that these rules about the house having so many years of life remaining, and the rest, should be based upon a reasonable length of time over which the money invested would be recovered. What I suggest now is that, in view of the provisions the right hon. Gentleman himself has made in the Bill for consideration of market values of houses at present decontrolled, it is possible to consider a certain amount of amenity expenditure that would be recovered, with the consent and good will of the tenant, over a very short period of years.

Mr. Brooke: That may well be, but it does not appear to me to arise on the Amendment or on the new Clause. The standard grant scheme is based on the principle that the house will have fifteen years' life in it. I must address myself to that issue.
The approach of the Government in the drafting and preparation of the Bill was that we should seek to provide for speeding up the provision of standard amenities, by way of the new standard grant, on a basis of agreement. The Government accepted that that should be done where it was agreed between the landlord and the tenant that it was needed. The Government accepted an Amendment from the other side of the Committee to ensure that the tenant was in agreement, though we had argued that it would not be possible for the work to

be done unless the tenant agreed, because the landlord would be unlikely to obtain entry.
Nevertheless, we accepted that Amendment and it appeared to us that the whole of the Committee was at one in wishing to put on record that this scheme was to proceed by way of agreement and not otherwise. Now we have to address ourselves to the Opposition's new Clause, which was included in the recommittal Motion on 4th March and which presumes disagreement and seeks to provide a system of compulsion: not compulsion on the tenant—that has been ruled out by hon. Members on the other side of the Committee through their Amendment—but compulsion on the landlord if he and the tenant do not agree.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the landlord had every incentive to agree. He has an incentive. In the great majority of cases, if the tenant wants such an improvement made and indicates that to the landlord, then if it is practicable, the landlord will, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, apply for and obtain the standard grant and put the work in hand.
That is our approach. We have been seeking in the Bill to secure that, where there is that agreement and where the house can be improved by means of a standard grant, the carrying out of the work will be facilitated. As I have said repeatedly, our main object is to have the houses improved.
It seems to the Government to be important, and I suggest that it is important to the Committee also, to distinguish between the object which the new Clause seeks to secure and the method by which the object is to be achieved. The object is quite simple and, to my mind, wholly acceptable. It is to secure that as many rented houses as possible will be improved with the benefit of these grants for standard improvements. There cannot be any quarrel whatever about the desirability of that. I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to see that work going forward on the fullest scale.
When we come to examine the method which is proposed in the new Clause, in the Government's view we get on to much less sure ground. In a somewhat complicated fashion, though I do not


complain of that, the Clause seeks to introduce an element of compulsion on landlords in order to force the carrying out of improvements. That is what the Opposition are asking the Committee to accept, and that is a view which the Government feel that they must resist.
We need to ask ourselves two questions. First, we need to ask whether it is right to introduce this element of compulsion. Secondly, we need to ask ourselves whether it is necessary. As to whether it is right, it is not a question of arguing whether it is desirable that as many houses as possible should be provided with bathrooms. We have to decide how we regard these improvements. We have to decide whether we look at them as facilities and amenities which it is highly desirable to see provided in every house, or whether they are to be regarded as essential requirements which every house must have.
It is important to be clear in our minds about what the second view would imply, because it would mean in effect setting a new standard of housing fitness. If Parliament accepted the new Clause it would be saying that all houses must be equipped with standard improvements if they are to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

Mr. Mitchison: Why not? Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his own words which I quoted, that these are
… requirements which everybody nowadays accepts should be part of any house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 797.]

Mr. Brooke: That is what I am saying. These improvements are desirable. This is the ideal which the country should strive to achieve. I am certain that all lion. Members on both sides of the Committee will welcome the day when these facilities and amenities are provided in every house. It would be a major change if we were now to accept this as a kind of minimum statutory standard. After all, if it is to apply, why should it apply to rented houses only? Why is not Par-lament saying that every house must have these facilities?

Mr. Mitchison: Why not?

Mr. Brooke: Why is not Parliament saying that every house which does not include these facilities must be considered

unfit for human habitation? That, however, is not what the Clause says. The Clause is designed to bring pressure to bear on the landlord of rented property, and on the landlord of rented property only. I am arguing that, if we are to accept that principle, Parliament should go further and exert the same kind of compulsion on all owners of houses, instead of singling out some.

Mr. Albert Evans: Surely there is a distinction between a house with a life of fifteen years or more and other houses? We are not saying that this should apply to all houses. We are saying that it should apply to a sound house with a life of fifteen years.

Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North was applying it to houses which had a life of less than fifteen years. I was drawing the distinction between rented houses and the others. If Parliament is to set up what would be a totally new standard of acceptable accommodation, it must give much more fundamental consideration to it and not introduce it by the side wind of a new Clause on the House Purchase and Housing Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he is drawing a distinction between owner-occupied and tenanted houses. What the Clause is about is the tenant obliging the landlord to have improvements put in when the tenant wants them. If an owner-occupier wants improvements, he will not find much difficulty in persuading himself as the owner to make them.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering does not appear to realise that the only principle upon which one could make the change would be the acceptance by Parliament that all houses must have these facilities and amenities. If one does not accept that, there is no case for imposing compulsion on one group of owners. The question of what should be the overall standard of housing accommodation cannot be considered and settled on a limited Bill of this kind, which is dealing simply with standard improvements.
So far, I have been speaking on grounds of principle. Now I will speak in terms of practical difficulty. As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, quite clearly the Clause would not


work unless provision were made for some form of appeal. There would need to be a provision whereby a landlord who thought he had good reason for not doing the work, even though the house would last for fifteen years, should be able to go before some kind of tribunal and state his case. He might be able to improve some houses which he owned, but not others. There is no provision for that in the Clause.
The proposition on which the Clause is based is that a tenant can come along at any time and force a landlord to put standard improvements into his house, or that all the tenants can come at the same time. Regardless of the fact that the landlord might be willing to make a start but could not do all the work simultaneously, under the Clause he would have no protection whatever against the demand that it should be done simultaneously in all his properties.
4.30 p.m.
Further, as has also been said, and as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself recognises, some means would have to be found for ensuring that the landlord who had to do the work could have access to the money, because there must be, and undoubtedly there are, many landlords who could not afford to pay their share of the work—certainly not for all the houses that are suggested.

Mr. Mitchison: They ought not to be landlords.

Mr. Brooke: it is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that they ought not to be landlords. Many people are in this position because of the totally unjust Rent Restrictions Acts which have operated for so long.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it would be quite easy to solve this problem of finding the money because the landlords could go to the building societies which would provide the money. I think that he has made a genuine mistake here. He may be quite genuinely unaware that in the agreement of which we spoke in connection with the earlier Clauses building societies are agreeing to advance that part of the cost of the improvement which the owner will have to meet in the case where an owner-occupier has himself started to

buy the house through an advance from a building society.
Indeed, if I may refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the White Paper, the last paragraph reads:
If a mortagor who is purchasing his house under this scheme improves it with the aid of a `standard improvement' grant within two years of the completion of the purchase, the Building Society will lend him the money to pay his share of the cost of the improvements …
subject to various provisions which are set out.
I am bound to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is nothing either in this Bill or in the agreement which has been reached with the building societies that will compel a building society to advance the owner's share of the cost of the standard improvement regardless of whether or not the owner is engaged in buying the house with mortgage advances from that society. These are complex matters which would have to be thought out with much greater care than is intended in this Amendment if, at some time, Parliament were disposed to make a change of this kind. They cannot be dealt with on a side wind in the present Bill.
Earlier in the discussion on this Amendment, a week ago, the Parliamentary Secretary used words to indicate that I was not necessarily hostile to the principle underlying this new Clause. What he said was entirely correct. It does not mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) seems to have inferred, that I necessarily accept the whole principle of the Clause. That would take me much further than I would be prepared to go, at all events at this stage.
The Government do not take the view that this is the occasion for introducing, through a new Clause in this Bill, major changes in the conception previously held of what is a habitable dwelling. It is upon that that the case for compulsion must basically rest. What we have to do is to work towards a general improvement in standards wherever we can, but we ought not to force a step like that universally without taking account of all its implications. Certainly, the Government would not be well disposed to making that change in the present Bill, which rests on the conception of encouragement and not of compulsion.
The second question which was asked a few minutes ago was whether this introduction of compulsion is necessary. That, obviously, rests with the future. I am quite sure that at present there is so much that can be done by agreement that there is no need here and now to introduce the principle of compulsion. I do not share the view of those who assume, without evidence, that the standard improvements will not be carried out by landlords unless they are under a threat of compulsion.
Under this Bill, in fact, owners of houses are given new opportunities of improving their houses. They can now look forward to receiving standard grants as of right, which they never could before. They can make their plans with a much greater degree of certainty. They also have a larger incentive to take advantage of these new standard grants, now that the conditions to be observed are, in the Bill, being made less onerous and restrictive than they were before.
The fact is that owners of house property are being offered by the Bill a new deal, and we ought to give that new deal a fair trial so that we can find out

what results it will achieve. My own belief is that its results will be far-reaching. I have always believed—and I should have thought that this was the general opinion of Parliament—that one should proceed as far as possible on a basis of incentive and agreement and not on a basis of compulsion. Not unless and until it can be shown that proceeding by way of incentive and agreement will not solve this problem could the Government advise Parliament to introduce, as we think unnecessarily, the element of compulsion which the new Clause contains.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman has three or four times referred to the element of compulsion. Compulsion in cases of this kind rests equally on the tenants who have to live in these old, out-moded houses because under the policy of the present Government they cannot find anywhere better to live.

Mr. E. G. Willis: A shocking answer from the Minister.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 236.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[4.38 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Albu, A. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Diamond, John
Hunter, A. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Awbery, S. S.
Donnelly, D. L.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ede, lit. Hon. J. C.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Balfour, A.
Edelman, M.
Janner, B.


Benoe, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Benson, Sir George
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Panc,S.)


Beswick, Frank
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Blyton, W. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Boardman, H.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Fletcher, Eric
King, Dr. H. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Form an, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Boyd, T. C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibson, C. W.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacDermot, Niall


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grey, C. F.
Mclnnes, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McLeavy Frank


Castle Mrs. B. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)



Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Chapman, W. D.
Hannan, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Sterling)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mahon, Simon


Clunie, J.
Hastings, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Coldrick, W.
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Healey, Denis
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mason, Roy


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Cronin, J. D.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mellish, R. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Holman, P.
Messer, Sir F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Monslow, W.




Moody, A. S.
Rankin, John
Thornton, E.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Reeves, J.
Timmons, J.


Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Reid, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mort, D. L.
Reynolds, G. W.
Viant, S. P.


Moss, R.
Rhodes, H.
Warbey, W. N.


Moyle, A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, T. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Ross, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oliver, G. H.
Short, E. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Oram, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Owen, W. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Pargiter, G. A.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Parker, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Parkin, B. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Paton, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pentland, N.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Woof, R. E.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Popplewell, E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swingler, S. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.



Probert, A. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Randall, H. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Aitken, W. T.
Dance, J. C. G.
Howard, John (Test)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh,S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Armstrong, C. W.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Ashton, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)
Iremonger, T. L.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Duncan, Sir James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Balniel, Lord
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Barber, Anthony
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barlow, Sir John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barter, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, M.


Batsford, Brian
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Freeth, Denzil
Leavey, J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Leburn, W. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gammans, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bingham, R. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Black, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Body, R. F.
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Gough, C. F. H.



Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gower, H. R.
Loveys, Walter H.


Braine, B. R.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R.(Nantwich)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Green, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bryan, P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gurden, Harold
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hail, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hay, John
Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Markham, Major sir Frank


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mathew, R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Cooke, Robert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, R. L.


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hobson,john(Warwlck &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Corfield, F. V.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Croathwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Neave, Airey


Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon, Dame Florence
Nicholls, Harmar







Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Robertson, Sir David
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Oakshott, H. D.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tweedsmulr, Lady


O'Neil, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vane, W. M. F.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Russell, R. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Osborne, C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Page, R. G.
Sharples, R. C.
Wade, D. W.


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Smithers, peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Partridge, E.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Peel, W. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wall, Patrick


Peyton, J. W. W.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Pitman, I. J.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Webster, David


Pott, H. P.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prioe, David (Eastleigh)
Storey, S.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. I.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Woollam, John Victor


Profumo, J. D.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ramsden, J. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)



Rawlinson, Peter
Teeling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Redmayne, M.
Temple, John M.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Whitelaw.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(AMOUNT OF STANDARD GRANT.)

Amendments made: In page 5, line 41, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-five".

In page 6, line 4, at end insert:
(b) by five pounds for that mentioned in paragraph (b).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF STANDARD AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THEM.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 12, at end add:
unless the dwelling was provided by the conversion before the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight of a building erected before the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION UNDER S. 13.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 22, after "hundred", insert "and ten".

In page 10, line 29, at end insert:
(b) by ten pounds for that mentioned in paragraph (b).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE GRANTS TOWARDS CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 13, line 28, at the end to add:
unless the dwelling was provided by the conversion before the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight of a building erected before the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four".
May I say that I regret as much as anyone the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is ill.
This Amendment is parallel with that in Clause 4, page 5, line 11, and I accordingly move it formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 20.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)

Amendment proposed: In page 13, line 29, at beginning insert:
Subject to the provisions of section (Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (Scotland)) of this Act."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 236.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Awbery, S. S.
Benson, Sir George


Albu, A. H.
Bacon, Miss Alice
Beswick, Frank


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Blenkinsop, A.




Blyton, W. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reid, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, J. W.


Cronin, J. D.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacDermot, Niall
Sparks, J. A.


Davles, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mclnnes, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss,Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Diamond, John
Mahon, Simon
Stress, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Swingler, S. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edelman, M.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Messer, Sir F.
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Warbey, W. N.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.,
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, Eric
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm.S.)



Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths. Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Owen, W. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hamilton, W. w.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hastings, S.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.
Woof, R. E.


Healey, Denis
Paton, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K,


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.
Zilliacus, K.


Hobson, C. R. (Kelghley)
Pentland, N.



Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Popplewell, E,
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Campbell, Sir David


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Alport, C. J. M.
Bingham, R. M.
Channon, H. P. G.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Chichester-Clark, R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bishop, F, P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Black, Sir Cyril
Cole, Norman


Armstrong, C. W.
Body, R. F.
Conant, Major Sir Roger


Ashton, H.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Cooke, Robert


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cooper, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barber, Anthony
Braine, B. R.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barlow, Sir John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Corfield, F. V.


Barter, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Batsford, Brian
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bryan, P.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Currie, G. B. H.







Dance, J. C. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss E. M


do Ferranti, Basil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, H. P.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, M.
Profumo, J. D.


du Cann, E, D. L.
Kirk, P. M.
Ramsden, J. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rawlinson, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Eillott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, W. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Freeth, Denzil
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Russell, R. S.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sharples, R. C.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Glover, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Speir, R. M.


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Stanley, Capt, Hon. Richard


Gough, C. F. H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cower, H. R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maitland, Cdr.J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Green, A
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimond, J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Garden, Harold
Mathew, R.
Temple, John M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, R. L.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hay, John
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vane, W. M. F.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Neave, Alrey
Viokers, Miss Joan


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wade, D. W.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Wall, Patrick


Holland-Martin, C. J,
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Holt, A. F.
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hornby, R. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Horobin, Sir Ian
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Webster, David


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Howard, John (Test)
Page, R. G.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Woollam, John Victor


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Partridge, E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Peel, W. J.



Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.
Mr. Whitelaw.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The first new Clause selected is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and his hon. Friends. I think it would be convenient also to discuss the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North

(Miss Herbison) and certain of her hon. Friends.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: On a point of order. The first new Clause standing in the name of my two hon. Friends and myself was put down during the Committee stage but was not then selected. You have just ruled, Sir Gordon, that you are selecting the second new Clause on this page. The first new Clause merely seeks to repeat in Scotland a protection which is given to tenants of improved houses by Clause 12 as it applies to England.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Clauses have been selected by Mr. Speaker and I cannot alter that decision. The first new Clause has not been selected.

Mr. Fraser: I should like your guidance, Sir Gordon. People in Scotland will be put in a very awkward position. By Mr. Speaker's failure to select the Clause and the failure of the Chairman of Ways and Means when the Bill was before the Committee, Scottish Members on both sides of the House are denied the opportunity of claiming the protection for tenants in Scotland which the Bill affords to tenants in England. Is there nothing that we can do about it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the merits of the matter. The first new Clause has not been selected.

Mr. Fraser: Is there no way by which Members of Parliament can claim the right to speak up for Scottish tenants?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could have made representations to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fraser: I understand that very strong representations were made to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that Mr. Speaker has come to a decision on the matter. I have no power to alter that decision.

Mr. William Ross: Scottish hon. Members are placed in an invidious position. What can we do to have the matter rectified?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is dissatisfied he can put down a Motion, but he cannot debate the matter now.

Mr. E. G. Willis: In view of the fact that no Scottish Minister is present to take note of the complaint so that it might be remedied—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—{OBLIGATION OF LESSORS RECEIVING STANDARD GRANTS AND APPLICATION TO TIED DWELLINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).)

(1) During a period of fifteen years after the making of a standard grant under this Part of this Act to a person in respect of a dwelling, section six of the Housing Act, 1957

(which prescribes conditions to be implied on the letting of small houses), shall apply to any contract for letting that dwelling or any part thereof, being a letting by that person, his successor in title or a person deriving title from the first-named person or his successor, as that section applies to the contracts mentioned in its subsection (1).

(2) Where under a contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture the provision of a dwelling for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, and the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling not being let to him, section seven of the Housing Act, 1957 (which applies section six of the said Act to houses occupied by agricultural workers otherwise than as tenants), shall have effect in relation to that dwelling and to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection as it has effect in relation to such a house as is mentioned in that section and to the provisions of the said section six of that Act.—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We had a very short discussion on a similar Clause in Committee on 18th February. That discussion was all too short, mainly because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that the weather was very bad. The object of the new Clause is to give any house which receives a standard grant the same conditions as regards repair that apply to houses which are commonly called small houses. In other words, it places an obligation on a landlord to carry out elementary repairs and to maintain what is not, after all, a very high standard of fitness for the house.
Under the Rent Act, for which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible, a landlord is now able to evict a tenant where a house is not subject to rent control. He can re-let it and impose almost what conditions he likes. This is a common occurrence in large towns. It is common in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and I admit that it is much more preferable that there should be these onerous requirements in large towns than in the same type of house in smaller urban towns in the Provinces.
The works which attract the standard grant increase the value of a house, and we suggest that the landlord should be required to maintain the house. After all, these grants go to an owner-occupier or to a landlord of a tenanted house.


There is every reason to believe that the owner-occupier, because his own comfort and standard of life are involved, will maintain that house at a proper standard of fitness. We are seeking to impose that condition upon the landlord who has received the improvement grant to his property.
The Minister, in the very brief opportunity which he had to reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the debate in Committee to which I have referred, said that the new Clause was unnecessary and he quoted Clause 5 (2), which reads:
The local authority must be satisfied that after the execution of the works specified in the application the dwelling will be in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is likely to remain in that condition and available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years.
The important words are
… likely to remain in that condition and available for use as a dwelling …
The question is: who is to pay for it? We say that the obligation should be on the landlord and not on the tenant. We are trying to protect the tenant. In all their activities the Government have not been concerned about the tenant but about the landlord. Having made their hand-out to the landlord to improve his property, then we say that they should at least show some regard for the tenant and give him the protection which the new Clause will provide.
I know that the Minister will say in his airy-fairy way, as he often does, that the new Clause is not necessary because the tenant can agree or disagree with the conditions which the landlord might like to put in the tenancy agreement when the tenant takes over the house. That is just bunkum. There is no such thing as a free market in houses, and the conditions which some tenants have to accept through sheer desperation sometimes have to be seen to be believed. There is a scramble for any accommodation which becomes available because of the actions which the Government have taken over the past few years, and it is likely to continue for some time to come.
That being so, we suggest that the Government, in addition to showing their friendliness towards landlords, should on this occasion, for the first time during the passage of the Bill through the House, show some consideration for the tenant

who is living in the house which has been improved at the expense of both the local ratepayer and the national Exchequer.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Willis: I hope that the Government will be favourably disposed towards the new Clause. The demand made in it is quite moderate and I should have thought was necessary in the light of our experience over the past thirty or forty years with regard to rented houses. It has been shown in the past, and it was shown during the inter-war period, that quite a number of landlords, who were authorised to make increases in rent in order to meet increasing charges, particularly with regard to repairs, did not do this. I think that this was pointed out by the Ridley Committee.
We cannot easily accept the proposition put forward by the Minister on a previous Amendment that landlords are always bursting with desire to maintain and improve their property. In a very large number of cases, of course, history proves that precisely the opposite is true, and that even when given increases of rent in order to enable them to effect repairs landlords do not do the job. Now, of course, we are going to spend public money on improving the houses and we ought to have some guarantee that they will be kept in a state of good repair by the owners. After all, the landlord is going to receive extra rent to enable him to meet the extra cost in which he is involved. I have no doubt that when the Government calculated how much the landlord should receive they had this job in mind.
During the debate on the two new Clauses which were earlier turned down by the Government, I asked for some information from the Scottish Minister—which, incidentally, we did not get—concerning the extent to which the owners of property had used the bribes given to them by the Government during the past two or three years, first by the 1954 Act and then by the Rent Act, with which to improve their properties.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, and I think that the Government's experience supports this in respect of the 1954 Act, even though the landlords were bribed by being given an increase in rent they did not set about the job


of repairing the houses. The great "Operation Rescue" was not a rescue operation at all. It was a gigantic flop, and everyone knows that. As far as we have been able to ascertain up to the present, no great deal of extra work is being done on houses as a result of the Rent Act. A great deal has been done, of course, in pushing up the rents and also in clearing out people in order to enable properties to be sold, but the great work of repair is not being done.
I suggest to the Government that the lesson learned from this is a lesson which has been obvious to anyone associated with this problem for any length of time. It is that a great number of owners do not keep their properties in a state of repair. They are content to sit back, draw the rent and say, "Well, this will last my time. Why should I spend good money so that someone else can reap the benefit?" That is an attitude of mind quite common among landlords.
By this proposed new Clause we seek to ensure that where public money is spent on improving houses and on enabling various amenities to be provided that, in fact, the houses shall be kept in a proper state of repair. As public money is being spent in this way I should have thought that there ought to be an obligation on the Government to see that this happens and to give the House of Commons an assurance that the money which we are virtually voting under the Bill is not simply going to be used for the purpose of increasing the income of a certain group of people who, by and large, do not accept their responsibilities.
I have no vendetta against landlords particularly, although I see that one of the constituents of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had a great vendetta against one landlord. I believe that he smashed him across the head with an iron bar or something because he came to collect the rent. That, of course, is rather typical of the outlook of some people in Scotland on the question of rent and landlords. We on this side of the House do not necessarily share that view.
5.15 p.m.
I have tried to indicate some of the things that happen and which have happened for a long time, things with which the Government are familiar.

Perhaps the Lord Advocate is now able to tell us that all the property owners in Scotland are bursting to maintain their houses in good repair. I do not think that he will be able to tell us that, but we shall be glad to hear his comments on the matter. We ask him seriously to consider the point, and we think it a reasonable demand to make when substantial sums of public money are being spent in this direction.

Mr. A. Evans: I wish to support the Clause and to confine my remarks to the first part of it. The second part deals with the agricultural worker, and, being an urban Member, I do not feel competent to deal with that subject.
It seems to me that the Minister will be almost obliged to accept the Clause, at any rate the first part of it, because all it does is to underline that Section 6 of the Housing Act, 1957, shall apply to these houses. That Act was passed during the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, and presumably, therefore, it has his approval.
Briefly, we are saying that Section 6 of the 1957 Act shall apply to houses which have had the benefit of grants and of public money being spent on them. That, quite simply, is the position. We ask the Minister to accept the proposed new Clause and to say, in effect, that his own Act will apply to those houses improved at public expense for a period of fifteen years.
The standard that we seek to apply is quite a reasonable one. We say that the owner of the house must observe the terms of the Housing Act, 1957, and that he must keep the house fit for human habitation for a period of fifteen years. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable thing to ask and to which no one could possibly take objection.
The definition laid down in the 1957 Act is not too difficult to carry out. The local authority will determine whether the house is fit or unfit for human habitation by having regard to certain items. It will have to insist, as, indeed, the Minister's own Act insists, that the house shall be in good repair. The local authority will look at the state of the house. That, obviously, is a reasonable thing to do when public money is being spent on a house—to see that it is in a state of


sufficient repair to warrant the expenditure of that money. Secondly, the house must remain in that state of repair for fifteen years. It is simply an ordinary, commonsense requirement that a house which is to be improved by public money should remain stable for a period of fifteen years.
The next item is freedom from damp. This is often a difficult matter, but it is not asking too much of any landlord to keep his house generally free from clamp. The next item is natural lighting. All these items are in the Minister's own Act. We are only reminding him and the landlords that they have a legal obligation to observe these standards.
The next is ventilation. Again, it is a reasonable and obvious requirement for the community to require any landlord to ensure that there is proper ventilation in his property. Water supply is dealt with under the standard grant, so this requirement, presumably, is already being met. It is not going too far to insist that the house must pass the standards of the local authority in respect of drains and sanitary conveniences. The final item relates to facilities for the storage and cooking of food. This, too, was laid clown in the Act and is reasonable. All of these conditions have been accepted by the House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. That was a Measure framed by the Minister and piloted by him through Parliament. It is his Act.
This is a simple proposal. We ask the Minister in the Bill to say to the recipients of public money for the improvement of their property, "You must observe the standards which Parliament has laid down in the Housing Act, 1957."

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I support the new Clause for two main reasons. First, I would hark back to some remarks I made in Committee and refer to the fact that I have supported the idea of the local authorities being compelled to make improvement grants. On one occasion, in fact, I said that I and hon. Friends of mine had been supporting that proposal at least a couple of years before the Minister himself introduced it.
At the same time, I pointed out on an earlier occasion that the safeguards to a local authority, now that it was being compelled to make these grants, were

inadequate. One or two changes have already been made, but, on the whole, the local authority still has far too few safeguards. It has to make the grant when the landlord applies, except in one or two instances. Once a local authority has made the grant and satisfied itself that the property has been improved by virtue of the standard grant and is in a fit state for human habitation—or, to put it the other way round, is not in a state unfit for human habitation—once the work has been carried out, for the sake of the local authority there is a strong case for stipulating in the Bill that for the next fifteen years the local authority, having provided a quite substantial sum of public money, should know exactly who is responsible for ensuring that the property remains in a state fit for human habitation. From the point of view, that this is merely a safeguard for the local authority, it is essential that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill.
All of us who have had any experience of local authorities—and the Minister himself has had quite considerable experience—know how difficult it often is to enforce statutory notices under either the Housing or Public Health Acts to make landlords carry out repairs that are necessary to put the property in a state fit for human habitation. The Minister, I am certain, also knows how so many landlords are able to twist the provisions of these notices and evade the court action which might follow by carrying out one or two of the repairs which they are asked to do, and then the local authority has to start all over again.
To a certain extent, that sort of thing could be avoided by including in the Bill a Clause of this nature, specifically laying the responsibility upon the landlord of the property to keep it in a state fit for human habitation over the next fifteen years. In this way, the local authority would know to whom it is to look for the responsibility for doing this work on the property. I assume that it would have some sanctions upon the owner if he did not carry out his obligations and might in certain circumstances, I would hope, be able to put pressure upon the owner, having received money from public sources, to keep the property in a state fit for human habitation, not only at the time the work is carried out, but for the next fifteen years thereafter.
Unless this provision is included in the Bill, in some cases it may well be difficult for the local authority to find out who is responsible for doing certain repairs of one kind and another—for example, broken sashcords, leaking roofs, gutters and drainpipes, damp and other things that my hon. Friend for Islington South-West (Mr. A. Evans) mentioned. From time to time, the local authority might find it difficult to discover who was responsible for doing the work. If public money is to be spent on these properties, the local authorities have the right to be able to say "Once you have got this public money, you, the landlord, are responsible for this work for at least the next fifteen years." I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way clear either to accept the Clause or to assure us that something like it may be included in the Bill at a later stage.

Mr. Ross: I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the new Clauses. In fact, I am surprised that he did not rise right away to give us that assurance. Acceptance of the new Clauses—I speak in the plural, because the same principle applies to Scotland as to England and Wales—follows logically from what the Government already have stipulated in relation to the granting to local authorities of the facility to authorise the work and to pay for their proportion of it in Clause 5, subsections (1) and (2).
If we examine those two subsections, we find that before a local authority approves an application for standard grant it must be satisfied that after the execution of the works the dwelling will be
in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is likely to remain in that condition arid available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years.
The principle, therefore, is already accepted by the Government. All we are suggesting is that the Government should go a little further and try to ensure that what they think should be the basis of the original grant should be kept as part of the contract of the granting of the money and the execution of the work. It should not be merely a case of likelihood that the house is kept fit for habitation but that it actually remains in

the proper state and that a responsibility is laid squarely upon the landlord for ensuring this.
I cannot see how any Government who believe in what they have said in Clause 5, with particular relation to the conditions laid down in subsection (2), can dismiss a new Clause of this nature. My first reason, therefore, is that the Clause follows logically from what the Government have already provided.
The other reason is that it follows from our historic experience of what has happened in the past in relation to these houses. So far, we have been concentrating on the first part of the new Clause in relation to houses which are let in the ordinary way. I would, however, remind the House that we are dealing also in the new Clause with houses which are let to agricultural workers, in which the provision of the dwelling forms part of a worker's remuneration for his work. In other words, it is a tied house.
5.30 p.m.
I would ask hon. Members to remember that in the past we have spent a great deal of public money on the housing of rural workers and that if there are any Acts in respect of which the spending of money in pursuit of those desirable ends gives room for thought they are the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. The Committee that investigated their working in Scotland said that much of the money was just wasted because the houses were not kept up to the proper standard despite the fact that Government money had been used on them.
I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who well knows what has been said in relation to this and the desirability to safeguard the public purse, will see the force of the new Clause. It will ensure that where not only rented houses in town and country bat also tied houses are improved by the application of the standard grant an obligation will be laid on the landlord in each case to keep the house up to the proper standard. That is all that the Clause requires. We have dealt with this matter in a fairly objective way. I do not think that there has been or that there could be any exaggeration in the matter of the neglect of obligations by landlords in the past.
If we feel it necessary under Clause 5 (2) to lay upon the local authority the


obligation to ensure, first of all, that the house is not unfit for human habitation and is likely to remain so for fifteen years, we should equally require the landlord, having received this grant, to keep those conditions for fifteen years. I should be very disappointed if the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in his new-found glory of looking after Scottish housing in the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State, does not agree. I do not know the reason for the absence of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Perhaps I should let my hon. Friend know that they are ill.

Mr. Ross: It must have been the prospect of coming here to face this new Clause that brought this spate of illness into the Scottish Office. I hope that these hon. Gentlemen will be back before long, but here is a chance for the Solicitor-General for Scotland to free himself from the shackles of St. Andrew's House and to accept the Clause for the good of Scottish housing.

Mr. H. Brooke: This Clause was moved by an English Member and, therefore, I think I should speak at this stage. The hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Lindgren), who moved its Second Reading, said that we had had a number of discussions on a similar Clause in Committee. I have refreshed my memory on that. We discussed it for a full half hour. Although I agree that it was a foggy evening, the hon. Member should not imagine that I cut my remarks short on that occasion. I gave a full, comprehensive and convincing answer—so convincing that the Committee negatived the new Clause without a division. Nevertheless, I will address myself to the matter again.
First of all, I want to remove any misconception there may be on either side of the House that unless we accept the new Clause the house may become unfit for human habitation. It has already been pointed out that under Clause 5, before the standard grant is made at all, the local authority must be satisfied that
after the execution of the works … the dwelling will be in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is

likely to remain in that condition … for a period of not less than fifteen years".
There is no dubiety or uncertainty there.
During the whole of the fifteen years, the local authority has powers under Section 9 of the 1957 Act in England and Wales to serve notice if it has reason to think that the house is unfit for human habitation. Therefore, the question which the Clause raises is not one of seeing whether the house is unfit and making it fit. The question is who shall pay for the work. The hon. Member for Wellingborough and his hon. Friends ask that in the particular case where a standard grant has been made for doing certain work on a house, the obligation to keep the house fit for human habitation should be put on the landlord, even though the tenancy agreement may provide otherwise.
As recently as the Rent Act passed two years ago, the whole question was reviewed of whether in certain circumstances the obligation should rest exclusively on the landlord to keep a house in repair. It was decided at that time by Parliament to revise the limits, and they have applied, since July 1957, to houses let at annual rents of less than £80 in London and £52 elsewhere in England and Wales. I know of no new reason emerging in the last eighteen months or so why these limits should now he amended by Parliament.
The new Clause would extend the provisions in Section 6 of the 1957 Act and the subsidiary provisions in Section 7, which deal with certain types of house or cottage, to any house improved by the aid of a standard grant regardless of the rent at which it is let. That seems illogical. If Parliament has held for many years, as it has, that we shall have a provision on a basis similar to that of Sections 6 and 7 of the 1957 Act, then clearly those obligations should apply to all houses up to certain rent limits. It may be open to argument what those limits should be, but there is no reason inherent in the Clause or in the general principle that could support an argument that one should pick out certain other houses above those rent limits and shift all obligation to repair on to the landlords in those cases.
Hon. Members have argued that this should be done where a standard grant has been given. They saw no reason to


do this when they introduced the improvement grant system in 1949. There was their opportunity, but they ignored it. Either they did not think of it—I am being charitable—or they thought of it and realised how inconsistent and baseless a change of that kind would be.

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman would agree—in fact it was one of his own criticisms of the 1949 procedure—that the conditions with which the landlord had to comply in 1949 as to the standard of property after improvements had been carried out were very high indeed. Here, the right hon. Gentleman must agree, we are dealing with a much lower standard of property. The case we put is that this provision is urgently needed. It might have been needed in 1949, but these are two different types of property, two different types of grant, with different standards.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is now saying that it is wise to get this work done and that one should relax the conditions, but he is urging in another direction that we should tighten the conditions. There might be a case if the local authority had no powers and had to form a judgment in the light of Clause 5(2) as to whether a house was likely to remain fit for human habitation for fifteen years or more; and then, having reached a favourable judgment could find itself powerless for the remainder of the fifteen years. That cannot happen, however, as long as section 9 of the 1957 Act is on the Statute Book, because there the local authority has power to serve notice to compel the carrying out of the work.
The suggestion I put to the House is that we should keep Section 9 in operation to provide the local authority with that sanction to ensure that the house is kept properly and does not become unfit I submit that there is no basis for altering the terms of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant as to the responsibility for repair if the house has received a standard grant but not—I notice in this proposed Clause—if it has received an improvement grant. So there again we should be committing another anomaly if we accepted this Clause.
I am sorry if I have disappointed hon. Gentlemen opposite, but before speaking

this afternoon I read my speech during the Committee stage of the Bill, and they are even more unwise than I had supposed them to be if they seriously imagine that I should have changed my view from the very powerful and compelling position which I took up a few days ago.

Mr. Lindgren: There might be two points of view as to what is powerful and what is compelling. I am not unknown in this House for my lack of sympathy with landlords. Unfortunately many of us have had to live under them for far too long to have any sympathy with them.
The remarks made by the Minister are not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the limits of the small house, or what is commonly known as the small house, were revised in the 1957 Act. That is true. It is also true that these houses would come outside those revised limits of £52 for the provinces and £80 in London. We are trying to bring them in. It should be remembered that the houses in question were sub-standard prior to receiving the grant. If a landlord has kept them sub-standard all that time, it being agreed that they are reasonably large houses because otherwise they would not be over those limits, what guarantee have we got that he will maintain his property?
Ever since—I was going to say time but certainly since the Torrance Act of 1860—successive Governments have had to pass Acts of Parliament to oblige landlords to carry out their obligations. Indeed this has been the job of Parliament almost annually in various Public Health Acts, and wherever there has been a possibility of avoiding their obligations the majority of large landlords have done so. The properties in this country, which the Minister called a national asset, deteriorate into slums because the landlords do not carry out their obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to Scottish rural housing, which covers tied cottages. In England we have made grants to agricultural cottages, and I am willing to admit that in this connection practically the only landlords who have applied these to tenanted properties have been those associated with large estates and agricultural properties. In the majority of cases,


I agree, they have maintained the properties in a fit condition, although some have not done so.
5.45 p.m.
Our job in Parliament is not to legislate for the fellow who normally does the right thing. We have to legislate to protect citizens against the person who, in one way or another, does not do the right thing. A classic example is provided by the Factories Bill, on which a Committee of this House has been sitting morning after morning. The average decent employer in this country is far ahead of factory legislation. The average decent landlord is well ahead of the requirements of the Public Health Acts. We are asking here that where a landlord has secured the grant, his property has been improved by it and he draws a bigger rent as a result, he should be required to maintain the property.
The Minister has made great play with Clause 5 (2) which I mentioned in my opening statement. It is true that under that subsection the local authority must be satisfied, after the work has been executed, that the property is likely to remain in a condition fit for human habitation for fifteen years. Unlike the majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Minister has had local government experience. What will any clerk, surveyor or other officer of a local authority assume when he sees Clause 5 (2)? Surely it is a fair assumption to be made by a local authority that the landlord of a property which has been improved by the works arising as a result of the standard grant will maintain normal, elementary running repairs to it. Certainly if the house is neglected for fifteen years, it will not remain fit for human habitation. So that subsection will make the local authority believe that the normal repairs will be carried out.
The dispute between us is about who will pay for those running repairs for the fifteen years following receipt of the standard grant. We say that the landlord should pay them. He has received the benefit of public money from the local ratepayer and from the national Exchequer. The value of his property has been improved. The rent has been improved if it is a rented property, and if it is a tied cottage it will be a greater attraction for a prospective employee.

Therefore, we say that he is the person who should maintain the property.
The Minister says that he is not concerned about this. If the property is large enough and a person enters into an agreement, it is all right not only for the landlord to get the standard grant and the increased rent but also to fleece the tenant, and the Minister will help him to do so by placing upon the tenant the obligation which should really be placed on the landlord. This is a further instance of what has been obtaining throughout the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman. If ever the landlords of this country subscribe for a permanent memorial to anyone, it should be for the right hon. Gentleman. I know of no other Minister, even in this present Government—and that is saying something—who has gone more out of his way to make it better for the landlord and worse for the tenant.

Miss Herbison: There are two proposed new Clauses, one applying to England and Wales and the other to Scotland and I am glad that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have shown how important it is that the one which applies to Scotland should be accepted.
For the last few weeks, on my way to the House of Commons from my home in London, I have seen a bright new Conservative Party poster saying, "Freedom with Conservatives". The experience of the people of Scotland and of Britain as a whole is that there is freedom under the Conservatives for some people and strict compulsion for others. The Minister's attitude towards these Clauses has again clearly demonstrated the freedom on the one hand and the compulsion on the other.
We are trying to rectify the provision giving landlords this freedom to get a subsidy, the standard grant. There is no talk of a means test for this subsidy. There is no talk of a differential rate. With previous housing legislation, when we have imposed far heavier burdens on the people, we have been told that local authorities could introduce differential rent schemes. The Government are always very tender in their dealings with landlords.
Some landlords are careful to keep their property in good repair, but there are not strong enough words to condemn what


landlords in Glasgow, Edinburgh, the mining villages of my constituency, and other parts of Scotland have done. It is because of our experience of that type of landlord that we have put forward these new Clauses.
The Minister claimed that his answer in Committee was so convincing that we did not take the matter to a Division. He knows very well that it was because of the inclement weather on that occasion that we did our best to help the progress of the Bill. He said that under Clause 5 (5) a house will have to be fit for human habitation and likely to remain in that condition before a local authority makes a grant. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland know that even if the local authority examines the property and finds it likely to remain in good condition, that condition will remain only if there is a good landlord willing to undertake repairs. We are talking about houses without sinks, without bathrooms, without food storage space. Those are old houses, and old houses almost always need some repairs some time during the year.
The Minister's answer showed that the Government are willing to give the money of the ratepayers and taxpayers to landlords, relieving them of any obligation to ensure that the money is wisely and carefully spent. It is of the utmost importance that close attention should be paid to our case, because if we press it strongly enough, the Minister may change his mind and in another place the Government may agree to what we want.
We are gravely short of houses in Scotland and we want to keep our pool of houses in the best possible state of repair. As we know from experience, that can be done only if landlords are obliged to keep houses in good repair. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter before finally deciding that he has an overwhelming case. It is an overwhelming case for the landlord, but not for the Minister, who should be taking great care of the money of ratepayers and taxpayers.

Mr. Willis: Surely we are to have an answer from the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the only Scottish Minister present.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I had not understood the hon. Lady the

Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) to raise any particular point which had not already been covered. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) agree with me that we want to keep our houses in good repair. The Bill is designed to that end, so that landlords can and will put in improvements. The "can" is the financial side, and the "will" is not a compulsion, but an opportunity and inducement to landlords to do so.
The view underlying the new Clauses, a view which I think fallacious, is that the greater the obligations on a landlord, the more likely he will be to operate the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that the greater the obligations on the landlord, the less likely he will be to take advantage of the Bill and the less likely the tenant will be to benefit. That is one of the fundamental reasons why the Clause should be rejected.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very grave statement. He suggested that if we put this obligation on a landlord, he would not apply for the standard grant; in other words, a landlord would apply for the standard grant if the obligation were not imposed, which means that such a landlord would have no intention of keeping a house in good repair.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that it is far too onerous an obligation that a landlord should keep a house fit for human habitation?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. I say that if the landlord has entered into a contract of tenancy under which the tenant is under an obligation to keep the house in good repair, these provisions would discourage the landlord from applying for a grant. As hon. Members from Scottish constituencies know, the ordinary case in Scotland is that the landlord has responsibility for structure and so on. However, the matter must be decided in every case according to the lease. If a lease has been signed and the landlord does not have this obligation, he is unlikely—I put it no higher than that—to take advantage of this method of improving houses—if the new Clauses are adopted.

Mr. Willis: Has the Scottish Office any evidence of an increasing desire by landlords to keep their property in repair because of the legislation to enable them to do so?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There are far more houses in Scotland to which repairs have been made and which have been brought up to proper standards than there were before 1954. I do not say that that applies to all houses, but the Bill is another stage in the steps which we are taking towards the objective which we all have in view.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: Surely the Solicitor-General for Scotland will concede that, despite the financial provisions of the Government's

Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, less than 4 per cent. of the houses that came within its scope were repaired. Surely he will also concede, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that very few owner-occupied houses were repaired to any great extent.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not think that the hon. Member's figure is entirely accurate. It is well below what I understand the real figure to be. Further, I would say that, on the whole, owner-occupiers have taken advantage of the improvement grant system, for which I readily concede we have to thank hon. Members opposite.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 237.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[6.2 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Albu, A. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gibson, C. W.
Mason, Roy


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Awbery, S. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bence. C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, w.


Benson, Sir George
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Beswick, Frank
Hamilton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mort, D. L.


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, S.
Moss, R.


Boardman, H.
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mulley, F. W.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hobson, C. R. (Keignley)
Oliver, C. H.


Boyd, T. C.
Holman, P,
Oram, A. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Owen, W. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Parker, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, John


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, A,


Chapman, W. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, T. F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Janner, B.
Pentland, N.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Coole)
Popplewell, E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. pncs. S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Probert, A. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Elwyn (w. Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Randall, H. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. w.
Reeves, J.


Deer, G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dodds, N. N.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
McCann, J.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edelman, M.
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, J, (Sedgefield)


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Simon
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Finch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. Brigg
Snow, J. W.




Sorensen, R. W.
Tomney, F.
Willey, Frederick


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, David (Neath)


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Spriggs, Leslie
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Steele, T.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Weitzman, D.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wells, Peroy (Faversham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Vates, V. (Ladywood)


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Thornton, E.
Wigg, George



Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Aitken, W. T.
Fell, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Freeth, Denzil
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Armstrong, C. W.
Gammans, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Ashton, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gibson-Watt, D.
McLean, Nell (Inverness)


Baldock. Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Glover, D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Balniel, Lord
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Barber, Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Barlow, Sir John
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Barter, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Green, A.
Marshall, Douglas


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grimond, J.
Mathew, R.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S, L. C.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Bingham, R. M.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Body, R. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hay, John
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, G. R. H.


Braine, B. R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Oakshott, H. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bromley-Davenport Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Page, R. G.


Bryan, P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peel, W. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Butcher, Sir Herbert

Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, Sir David
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Channon, H. P. G.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pott, H. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cole, Norman
Howard, John (Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Profumo, J. D.


Cooke, Robert
Kurd, Sir Anthony
Ramsden, J. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Redmayne, M.


Corfield, F. V.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Remnant, Hon. P.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Dance, J. C. G.
Kimball, M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


de Ferranti, Basil
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leather, E. H. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Sharples, R. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Speir, R. M.


Elliott, Ft. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)







Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Webster, David


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vane, W. M. F.
Whitelaw, w. S. I.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D, F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Teeling, W.
Wade, D. W.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick



Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(OBLIGATIONS OF LESSORS RECEIVING STANDARD GRANTS AND APPLICATION TO TIED DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND).)

(1) During a period of fifteen years after the making of a standard grant under this part of this Act to a person in respect of a dwelling, section three of the Act of 1950 (which prescribes conditions to be implied on certain lettings of houses) shall apply to any contract for letting that dwelling or any Dart thereof, being a letting by that person, his successor in title or a person deriving title from the first-named person or his successor, as that section applies to the contracts mentioned in its subsection (1).

(2) Where under a contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture the provision of a dwelling for his occupation forms part of his remuneration, and the provisions of the last foregoing subsection are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling

not being let to him, section four of the Act of 1950 (which applies section three of the said Act to houses occupied by workmen engaged in agriculture) shall have effect in relation to that dwelling and to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection as it has effect in relation to such a house as is mentioned in that section and to the provisions of the said section three of that Act.—[Miss Herbison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 238.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[6.11 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edelman, M.
Kenyon, C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, s. W.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benson, Sir George
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Beswick, Frank
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
McCann, J.


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacDermot, Niall


Blyton, W, R.
Gibson, C. W.
Mclnnes, J.


Boardman, H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McLeavy, Frank


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon, James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersf'd, E.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Thomas (Inoe)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hasting, S.
Mayhew, C. P.



Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, G.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mikardo, Ian


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mitchison, G. R.


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Monslow, W.


Chapman, w. D.
Holman, P.
Moody, A, S.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Clunie, J.
Hoy, J. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moss, R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.


Cronin, J. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, F. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oram, A. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Janner, B.
Owen, W. J.


Deer, G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Delargy, H. J.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Diamond, John
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parker, J.




Paton, John
Skeffington, A. M.
Watkins, T. E.


Pearson, A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Peart, T. F.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pentland, N.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Popplewell, E.
Snow, J. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Prentice, R. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sparks, J. A.
Wigg, George


Probert, A. R.
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Steele, T.
Willey, Frederick


Randall, H. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Reid, William

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Reynolds, G. W.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thornton, E.
Woof, R. E.


Ross, William
Timmons, J.
Yates, V, (Ladywood)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tomney, F.
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Aitken, w. T.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Dr, Donald (Carlisle)


Alport, C. J. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Duncan, Sir James
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Arbuthnot John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.


Armstrong, C, W,
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Ashton, H.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Leavey, J. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leburn, W. G.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Balniel, Lord
Finlay, Graeme
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Freeth, Denzil
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Barter, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Batsford, Brian
Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Longden, Gilbert



Glover, D.
Loveys, Walter H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Goodhart, Philip
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bingham, R. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bishop, F. P.
Green, A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimond, J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Body, R, F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Braine, B. R.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas


Burden, F. F. A.
Hay, John
Mathew, R,


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Campbell, Sir David
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.
Mawby, R. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Channon, H. p. G.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cole, Norman
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neave, Airey


Cooke, Robert
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Corfield, F. V.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Oakshott, H. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Howard, John (Test)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Osborne, C.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Page, R. G.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Peel, W. J.


de Ferranti, Basil
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pike, Mist Mervyn


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.







Pitt, Miss E. M.
Shepherd, William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pott, H. P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Profumo, J. D.
Speir, R. M.
Wade, D. W.


Ramsden, J. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Rawlinson, Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Redmayne, M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wall, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ridsdale, J. E.
Storey, S.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Webster, David


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Teeling, W.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Roper, Sir Harold
Temple, John M.
Woollam, John Victor


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Russell, R. S.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)



Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.


Sharples, R. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(APPROVAL OF BUILDING SOCIETIES FOR INVESTMENT BY TRUSTEES AND GOVERNMENT LOANS.)

Sir Herbert Butcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end to insert:
(5) The Treasury may by order vary the amount specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section.
The purpose of the Amendment is to allow the figure £5,000, the maximum amount of deposit which a trustee may make, to be varied without the need for additional legislation.
I move this Amendment because all figures tend to become out of date, but more, perhaps, because £5,000 is also the maximum investment to which the composite rate of Income Tax payable on building society deposits applies. This last figure can be altered at any time by agreement between the Inland Revenue and the Building Societies Association. It is desirable that there should be machinery for altering the figure in the Bill so that that figure can fall within any alteration in the Income Tax arrangements. If my right hon. Friend cares to examine Clause 2 (3) he will find a very good precedent.

Sir Cyril W. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment will bring a desirable flexibility into these arrangements. I do not think I need add anything more to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher).

Mr. Mitchison: On this side of the House we see no objection to the Amendment.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am glad to hear that, because on the Government side also we see no objection. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having drawn attention to this possibility of improving the Bill. It may be necessary for the £5,000 limit to be changed, and it would be awkward if we needed fresh legislation to change the £5,000 now in the Bill. On behalf of the Government I am happy to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Reynolds: Before we agree to this Amendment, I would draw attention to the fact that it is apparently easy to persuade the Government—I am not objecting—to give concessions in the Bill to the building societies, compared with the difficulty there is of getting concessions for the local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, at the end to insert:
not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section seventy-seven of the Housing Act. 1957, which defines overcrowding) and will".

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment might be taken with the corresponding one in Clause 20, page 13, line 34, at the end to insert:
not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section forty-nine of the Act of 1950, which defines overcrowding) and will".
There can be two Divisions, if they are required.

Miss Herbison: We feel very strongly in Scotland about overcrowding. The Solicitor-General for Scotland will know, as does everyone in Scotland, how serious overcrowding is in our country. We have a very much worse record than any


other place in the United Kingdom and almost the worst record of any place in Western Europe. In Committee, two similar Amendments to this were moved, and both were rejected. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said, when rejecting one of those Amendments:
But it would be quite wrong to make it a condition of a standard grant that the house shall not be overcrowded when the work is done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1959; Vol. 599. c. 710.]
The Joint Under-Secretary of State, speaking to the Scottish Amendment on 18th February, said:
We feel that we can do no more than leave it to those concerned, the local authorities, to judge each case on its merit in relation to what can or cannot be done by standard grant, deciding whether an application for a grant is a valid one or not. As a housing authority, the authority must do its best to find new homes for those who are in the greatest need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1939, Vol. 600, c. 448.]
That statement by the Joint Under-Secretary of State might have been made by someone outside Scotland. It is very difficult to reconcile it with representing a constituency in Glasgow.
I want to take up one point, because it contains an argument that we shall be hearing again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was left to those who were concerned, the local authorities, to judge each case. Under the provisions of the Bill the local authority cannot take into consideration questions of overcrowding. If a house satisfies the conditions that it is fit for human habitation and will be so for at least fifteen years, it is obligatory for the local authority to give the standard grant. The reason given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State does not, therefore, hold according to the provisions of the Government's own Bill.
I turn to the other reason given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State and by the Minister. Both suggested that local authorities had power to deal with overcrowding. The obligation is put on local authorities to give the standard grant. When it is found that by giving the amenities a house becomes overcrowded, the local authority can say, "This house is overcrowded", and it must insist upon the tenants being evicted. The Minister and the Joint Under-Secretary of State

say, "That is all right. The local authority will find accommodation for the tenants," but that is just not possible. In almost every area that I know in Scotland it is not possible to do so. I am sure that many English hon. Members will confirm that from their constituencies.
There has been much unemployment in Scotland. Redundancies have been caused. In one part of my constituency men have been made redundant who have been living in tied cottages on service tenancies, and they have been told to get out. They have no protection under the law, and they must get out. The local authority tells them and me that the housing position in that village—it is not a city—is such that the local authority can make no promise to find alternative accommodation for the evicted families. It is, therefore, just nonsense for either Minister to suggest that if overcrowding is brought about by the Bill the local authorities can easily find alternative accommodation for the families.
If families are evicted by the powers which local authorities have for dealing with overcrowding, landlords may like that, and they may apply for the standard amenities in the hope that overcrowding will take place. This will ensure that the tenants are evicted, whether or not there is accommodation for them. Landlords, particularly of controlled tenancies, will then be able to sell the houses, getting a much larger sum of money than otherwise. In another part of the Bill the Government, again tender to the landlord, say that landlords will not be forced to pay any part of the standard grant back to the local authority. Under a previous Act by this Government, houses are decontrolled immediately any of the controlled tenancies become vacant. If by overcrowding they become vacant, the very fact that they have these standard amenities will help the owner to get a much higher rent than he might otherwise get.
6.30 p.m.
I come back to the question of overcrowding. We are seriously perturbed about it. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has spoken of the housing record of the Conservative Government. What has that record been? In Scotland, where we have been cursed with the


social evil of too small houses—oneroom and two-room houses—this Government, by their form of subsidies, have made it almost impossible for local authorities to build the bigger houses we desperately need. All their actions have been leading to greater overcrowding in Scotland. I beg the Minister and the Solicitor-General for Scotland to have second thoughts on this matter. It is a matter of great importance to many thousands of decent people in Scotland.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment.
I need not reiterate the very strong case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). The Solicitor-General for Scotland is aware, as my hon. Friend indicated, that the curse of Scotland is undoubtedly small houses. That applies no only to the older type of property, but to the type of houses being built under this Government. It is a shocking state of affairs that this Government should concentrate on building, to the extent of almost 70 per cent. of the new houses, those of three apartments. In Scotland we have the worst overcrowding problem of any part of Great Britain.
For example, the Solicitor-General knows that in housing standards and size of houses in Glasgow alone 70 per cent. are one-, two- or three-apartment houses, whereas in Birmingham there are only 14 per cent. of that type of houses, in Manchester 10 per cent., and in Liverpool 11 per cent. The percentage of overcrowding in Great Britain, with people living more than two persons to a room, is 3·56 per cent. In perhaps the worst English town, Liverpool, the percentage is 3·56 per cent., but in Glasgow it is 26 per cent. The local authority should satisfy itself before making necessary provision for grant that there will be no overcrowding in a house which qualifies for improvement grant.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Members for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) are aware, I know something from personal experience of the housing situation in Glasgow. I agree that overcrowding is a problem which has been with us for a long time and may continue to be with us for some time to come, but I doubt whether that is really relevant to this Amendment.
I shall deal with it perhaps from a slightly legal point of view. It seems that, however well-intentioned the Amendment is, it would drive a carriage and four through the whole provisions of the Bill. Under Clause 20 (2), before any grant is approved:
The local authority must be satisfied that …
and then, in the terms of the Amendment, that the house concerned will "not be overcrowded". [Interruption.] I am sorry, I was dealing with the Scottish Amendment put down to Clause 20, page 13, line 34. I believe we are discussing both Amendments together and I should like to deal with the Scottish one because I am rather more familiar with that part of the Bill. By that Amendment:
The local authority must be satisfied that after the execution of the works specified in the application the dwelling will not be overcrowded".

Miss Herbison: No, "unfit for human habitation".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry, I am dealing with the later Amendment, by which the words would be "will not be overcrowded". If we put that in,
The local authority must he satisfied that … the dwelling will not be overcrowded",
and that puts a tremendous burden and onus on the applicant. How can any local authority be satisfied that when the application is granted there may not be another child, or a grandmother, coming into the house? Any local authority which was in doubt would have to reject the application. One cannot put an onus like that on the applicant if one hopes that the Bill will succeed.

Mr. McInnes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is abundantly aware that the provision ensures that the local authority must satisfy itself at the time of application that such and such conditions do not exist. That is at the time of application and, therefore, must not presuppose that the authority has to anticipate what the additional family might be in the years ahead.

Mr. A. Evans: On the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about another child coming into the house, if he turns to the definition of overcrowding he will see that, if such a


child arrives later, that is allowed for and would not itself cause the house to be overcrowded.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I entirely agree, but I put it rather differently, a child may attain a certain birthday, but equally, a grandmother may come into the house. It puts a tremendous onus on the applicant to have to satisfy the local authority that the house will not be overcrowded, will be in such and such a condition, and so on.
Surely the protection we have written into the Bill—I think wisely—in Committee is that the occupier has to consent in writing to the application. If the occupier or the landlord wants to improve the house, should they not be entitled to do it even if overcrowding might possibly result? After all, we are in a free State. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North has been talking about Conservative freedom, which I understand she saw mentioned on a non-glossy poster the other day. If the occupier and the landlord both want to improve property, why should not they be allowed to have that done, even though overcrowding may result.

Mr. MacColl: I do not mind the right hon. and learned Member going backwards, but he is going backwards rather a long way because he proposes virtually to repeal the Housing Act, 1935, in England—I do not know what is the corresponding Act in Scotland—which made overcrowding an offence. Parliament made it an offence whatever the landlord and the tenant might think about it, because they thought that it was a public scandal to permit overcrowding. The right hon. and learned Member now tells us, "If the landlord and tenant agree, why should we worry about it?" It is good to know where the Government stand.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Government are standing and will continue to stand. I do not know the situation in England. In Scotland there are provisions making overcrowding an offence after an appointed day, but apart from certain burghs in which the appointed day has been named, overcrowding is not at the moment an offence in Scotland. Once overcrowding becomes an offence or a crime, that will stop overcrowding and we shall not need the

overcrowding provision in the Amendment. Overcrowding would be stopped by issuing a summons on the person concerned.

Miss Herbison: If the hon. and learned Member looks at Sections 48 and 49 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, he need read only the rubric. Section 48 reads,
Duty of local authority to inspect and to make reports and proposals as to overcrowding.
Section 49 contains a definition of overcrowding. From the Solicitor-General's statement one would think that we had been very foolish in passing that Act and that we were taking away liberties in not allowing people to be overcrowded. I advise him to reconsider these matters. Is he also aware that local authorities are very careful, when rehousing their people, to ensure that they are not overcrowded? They stick rigidly to what is laid down in the 1950 Act.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am fully aware of the problem. Had the hon. Lady turned over the page she would have seen that I was dealing not with Sections 48 and 49 but with Section 50 and was pointing out that the offences in relation to overcrowding take effect only from the appointed day. Except in certain minor respects, broadly speaking there has been no appointed day. If overcrowding were a possible result of the execution of works under the Clause, the remedy in due course would be to deal with it under Section 50 when overcrowding was a crime. The law being as it is and conditions being as they are, if both the tenant and the landlord want an improvement, why should they not have it? The Amendment may well prevent them from having it because of the great burden of proof which would be placed on the applicant.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I have heard the Solicitor-General for Scotland reply to debates on many occasions, but I am bound to say that I have rarely heard him as poor as he was today. I think that when he reads the report of what he said he will realise just how poor was the reply which he made to the cogent arguments of my hon. Friends.
I have no desire to repeat those arguments, but, to sum them up, they were that we aimed to prevent an aggravation


of the overcrowding problem. That is the object of the Amendment. The Solicitor-General's reply was astonishing. It was that the Government are no longer following the policy of seeking to stop the growth of overcrowding.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That, I hope, was not what I said and it was certainly not what I intended to convey. I said that we were faced with an overcrowding problem. Even with the houses built in Scotland under this Government, that will probably continue for some time. Heaven knows what will happen if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are returned to power.

Mr. Willis: We are not discussing what will happen when my right hon. Friends are returned to power. We are discussing what the Solicitor-General told us was the Government's policy in relation to these Amendments. He said that if an owner and an occupier want this improvement, even though it means overcrowding, why should they not have it?

Mr. MacColl: They are paid to make the improvement.

Mr. Willis: The Government hope that they will do it. They are distributing considerable largesse to people who do not need it in order that the improvement may be done. I am surprised that the Solicitor-General, particularly as he represents a Glasgow constituency, should say at the Box, "We are willing to pay people to aggravate the overcrowding situation in Glasgow."

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is not what I said. I said that if the tenant wishes to have the amenities he should be entitled to have them under the Bill and should not be hindered by the Amendment, which would deprive him of the amenities which he wants.

Mr. MacColl: Even if he is overcrowded.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Even if he is overcrowded. Let him have the amenities he wants. The Amendment would take away freedom from the unfortunate tenant, as the Socialists always want to take away freedom. They say that he should be prevented from having what he desires. That is Socialist policy.

Mr. Willis: The Solicitor-General is trying to modify his answer in the light of al examination of it. While I appreciate

the political reasons for which he wants to do that, particularly as he represents a Glasgow constituency, if he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he said that the Government were prepared to condone this and to finance it. The Government are financing these improvements to property, and they are anxious to finance them even though they lead to overcrowding. Even though the figure of overcrowding in Glasgow is already 30 per cent., the Government are prepared to see it go higher.
The Solicitor-General's argument was, "Let the people be free. Set them free. Why should we interfere between what the landlord and the tenant desire to do?" There is a very good reason, and it is that we are spending public money. I thought that it was the duty of the House when spending public money to see that it was properly accounted for and, where necessary, to lay down certain provisions to ensure that it was spent in the interests of the community and the welfare of the country. Apparently the Government Front Bench deny that.
So much for the Minister's reply to the first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that without these Amendments we should run a serious risk of aggravating overcrowding. The second point raised by my hon. Friend was that unless we accepted the Amendment we ran a considerable risk that the overcrowding could be used for the purpose of getting rid of the tenant by bringing the house within the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, which would enable landlords to profiteer at the expense of public money. That is what the charge was, and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North who moved the Amendment, made it very clearly. The sum and substance of it was that unless the Government accepted the Amendment, we should be making it possible for landlords to profiteer at the public expense and out of the expenditure of public money.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave no reply to that at all. The reply which he gave us tonight failed to deal with the first point, while, of course, no reply at all was given to the second point made in support of the Amendment. In those circumstances, I sincerely hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.

Mr. MacColl: I do not think that this is a case where Scotland leads England. If I could help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would remind him that in the Housing Act, 1936—the English Act—overcrowding was made an offence, subject to an appointed day, just as it is in the 1950 Act, but owing to overcrowding not being such a serious problem in England, it has now been made an offence universally. In Scotland, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), overcrowding is so serious that only in 1950 was it possible to pass an Act, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us, the appointed day has not yet been made universal.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman prays in aid the fact that overcrowding is so serious in Scotland that it is not possible to have an appointed day for the whole country, as it is in England, as a very good reason for saying that we should encourage and subsidise increasing overcrowding. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is nonsense and just like the Labour Party, which does not believe in freedom, to want to prevent the increase of overcrowding in Scotland because, after all, there is no appointed day to make it universal.
If that is what he said, and if he speaks for the Scottish Office when he says that, I feel more sympathy for my hon. Friends now than I felt for them during the long and weary weeks I have listened to them wrestling with the Scottish Office upstairs, because that cannot be what the Secretary of State intends to do. Is it?
If I may come back to the English position, which is a good deal clearer, my worry, as it is the worry of my hon. Friends who are English Members, is that if a local authority gives one of these improvement grants and creates overcrowding by taking a room out of occupation, the effect will be that it is aiding and abetting the creation of that kind of occupation which is an offence. The present occupation is not an offence, but it would be an offence as a result of the improvement grant. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that point, because it is important.
What the Minister said in Committee was that it did not matter, because the local authorities could easily rehouse the

people who were displaced from the house. In other words, if the landlord wanted to get rid of a tenant he did not like, say, a Labour Party voter, or something of that sort, all he had to do was to take his grant from the local authority, put a bath in a bedroom, create overcrowding in the house, and go back to the town hall and say "Look, an offence has been created; rehouse these people immediately." Then, whatever the state of the waiting list, according to the Minister's suggestion, the housing committee will have to rehouse these people because they are overcrowded. That is what will happen unless the Amendments are accepted.
For the Minister to suggest that the local authority can rehouse people overcrowded as a result of his own subsidy policy is absolute nonsense. Some local authorities have stopped any building for general need. Certainly, a great many of those I know have stopped it, and the only rehousing that there is available for people displaced as a result of overcrowding are houses which happen to fall vacant casually, and they are not very many.
A good many local authorities which already have a waiting list have put a stop on their waiting lists, and unless people have been on the list for two or three years, they cannot even be considered for rehousing. I know of a case in my own constituency—and I am sure that similar examples could be quoted by all hon. Members who represent industrial constituencies—of a man, his wife and three or four children encamped in one room in a small house. The local authority has admitted that they are shockingly overcrowded, but has said that it saw no hope of rehousing them for a matter of four or five years.
Against that background, we are told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Conservative Party is setting people free. We are told about the right of the landlord and tenant, if they want, to have a bathroom put in the house. They can compel the local authority to make a grant and to have it put in, regardless of the effect on the overcrowding situation in the house. That is putting the clock back to about 1936, because as long ago as 1936 we began to tackle overcrowding as one of the biggest menaces in housing. Now, we are


apparently told that it is no longer the policy of the Government, because it is not a question of a local authority exercising its discretion in favour of it, but of its being compelled to do it, whether it wants to do so or not. If we are compelling the local authority to reverse housing policy, as expressed in legislation for over twenty years in England, surely we ought at least to put in a saving Clause and say that it need not do it unless it thinks it is in the general interests that it should be done.
The Minister will not agree to that. He says the local authorities will not have any let out at all. The local authorities are to be compelled to make these grants in order to have a room converted into a bathroom, regardless of its effect on the overcrowded situation in the douse, and regardless of the likelihood of the family being rehoused in other property by the housing committee. The situation is bad enough in all conscience, but the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempts to defend it simply takes one's breath away. It is about time we had some clearer explanation of whether he is interpreting the policy of the Secretary of State for Scotland correctly.

Mr. A. Evans: I think the Parliamentary Secretary should, in due course, reply to the important points we have made on these Amendments, because this is a very serious matter. Unless this Amendment is put into the Bill, or at some later stage some words to the same effect are included, local authorities will be faced with a very serious position.
They are to be obliged by the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to condone overcrowding, and they will be forced by the Act to become parties to the overcrowding of dwelling-houses. They are to be obliged by the Bill to flout the enactments about overcrowding already on the Statute Book. The Government Front Bench must deal with this matter. We cannot allow this to go through without the Minister giving us a very carefully considered reply, because we see that the Bill will in due course oblige local authorities to countenance and be parties to the flouting of the provisions of the 1957 Act relating to overcrowding. We must insist that the Government face this possibility and either accept the Amendment or promise that some similar words

will be inserted at a later stage—perhaps in another place—to meet the point.
7.0 p.m.
It is quite clear that the local authority will have no discretion. The Bill clearly lays down that local authorities must make the grant so long as two conditions are fulfilled. The first is that the house will not be unfit for human habitation, and the second is that the owner has a I5-year interest in it. These conditions having been satisfied, the local authority will be obliged to make the grant even though the house is already overcrowded, or may become so as a result of the improvements.
It is incredible that the Government have not become earlier aware of the false position into which local authorities will be driven, and have not attempted to put the matter right. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not adopt the argument used by the Solicitor-General for Scotland and tell us that if a house is overcrowded the remedy is simple—the local authority just enforces the overcrowding provisions of the 1957 Act. That will not meet the situation, because he knows, as does his right hon. Friend, that it is impossible for many local authorities in urban areas to enforce those overcrowding provisions. I trust that he will help us to find a way out of the local authorities' dilemma.

Mr. Reynolds: I never thought that in this House I would hear a member of the Government arguing, in effect, in favour of public financial help in the creation of overcrowding. I can imagine past generations of sanitary inspectors virtually spinning in their graves at the thought of such a statement being uttered in this enlightened day and age.
One of the main reasons given by the Solicitor-General for Scotland for finding difficulty in accepting the Amendment was that it would place an unreasonable obligation on the owner or occupier of the property. I do not accept that. Section 78 of the 1957 Act lays down the penalties that can be imposed on persons causing overcrowding. There is already a penalty of £5 for the first offence, and a further fine not exceeding £2 per day for the period during which the overcrowding lasts.
Let us look at the obligations placed on the landlord. Subsection (5) of Section


78 of the 1957 Act says that the landlord of an overcrowded house
… shall be deemed to cause or permit it to be overcrowded … if, when letting the house the landlord, or any person effecting the letting on the landlord's behalf, had reasonable cause to believe that it would become overcrowded … or failed to make inquiries of the proposed occupier as to the number, age, and sex of persons who would be allowed to sleep in the house …
Therefore, the 1957 Act—and that was a consolidation Measure, some of the provisions of which had been in operation for many years—states that a landlord may be deemed to have committed an offence if he forgets or omits to inquire from incoming tenants how many persons there are in the family, whether or not they are married, and the age and sex of those who are to occupy the property. If we accept that a landlord has committed an offence by his forgetfulness or omission, I do not think it can be said that, when an application is being made for a standard grant, we are putting on the owner of a property an excessive obligation by stipulating that he shall tell the local authority—at the time of the application—just who actually occupies the property, and their age and sex. We cannot, of course, look into the future and decide whether or not the property will be overcrowded in two, three or even ten years' time. This is something that has to be dealt with at the time of the application.
The Parliamentary Secretary represents in this House a part of England and Wales that suffers most from overcrowding. I believe that he has had a certain amount of experience on the council of one of the great cities there. He must realise, although his right hon. Friend the Minister did not appear to realise it in Committee, that for most of the urban authorities it is virtually impossible to take effective action on overcrowding under Sections 77 and 78 of the Housing Act, 1957.
It is not good enough to say that the local authorities already have adequate powers to deal with this problem. My own council of the Metropolitan Borough of Islington has not sufficient housing accommodation at the moment to deal with people living in properties that are the subject of closing or demolition orders, let alone those affected by overcrowding notices. It has to deal with the closing and demolition cases first—they

are the worst—but it has not sufficient property vacant to accommodate the people taken out of houses that ought to be demolished or closed. The people have to stay in them until the local authority can scrape together one or two flats to rehouse some of those affected by demolition orders. The Islington Borough Council just cannot look at overcrowded cases at all.
My council is extremely concerned about the situation that will be created. An applicant will be able to demand from the local authority the standard grant for the improvement of property that is either already overcrowded, or—and this is very much more important—will become statutorily overcrowded as the result of the improvement work. Local authorities should not be placed in that position.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland asked why, if the owner of the property and the occupier agree, they should not be allowed to go ahead and have the desired amenities. That could create a profitable racket. A tenant may be half way up the housing list, with not much chance of rehousing at present. The owner will seek his consent to the improvement work. The tenant knows that if one room is taken from him to be converted into a bathrom his points on the waiting list will shoot up and he will stand a very good chance of being quickly rehoused because of his statutory overcrowding.
In those circumstances, he would welcome the improvement, not because it would improve the property but because it would enable him to get further up the housing list and, as it were, jump the queue. At the same time, the landlord would be willing to do the work because he would get vacant possession of that part of the house. That could happen, especially in the congested Metropolitan boroughs of London, and I hope that we shall get at least some concession from the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I should like to give the House a very short justification for the Clause as it stands, but before doing so I think it right to try to dispel one or two of the misunderstandings and misstatements that have cropped up in this debate. It is quite true that I have had some little experience of local


government, and my right hon. Friend has had a great deal more. It is equally true, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has said, that certain tricks—some reputable, some less reputable—are practised by people when trying to get houses from local authorities.
Having listened to all the speeches with the greatest sense of objectivity that I can muster, I must say that some of the statements made by hon. Members opposite have almost given me the impression that they are opposed to the execution of any improvement works at all. I am trying to be perfectly fair. That is the impression which several statements from hon. Members opposite have given to my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred to a statement which was supposed to have been made by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of the Bill. He suggested that my right hon. Friend had said: "In certain circumstances local authorities can always use their overcrowding powers. They can enforce those powers and they can always re-house the overcrowded families". My right hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. My right hon. Friend said:
The hon. Member"—
that was the hon. Member for Islington, North—
will, of course, grant that many local authorities are able to use these powers now that two million houses have been built in the last seven years. It must not be thought that there is any diminution here in the powers of the local authorities to deal with overcrowding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 710.]
That was what my right hon. Friend said. That is a very different proposition from the words which were attributed to him by the hon. Member for Widnes.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said that in many areas it is not possible for local authorities to enforce the overcrowding provisions of the Housing Acts. I concede at once that in certain areas of the country—certain parts of London and certain Farts of the large provincial cities—that is the case, and that overcrowding undoubtedly exists. Today there is far less overcrowding in these areas than there was seven years ago. Two million additional new houses have been built in the last seven years, all of which have

made their contribution to the relief of overcrowding throughout the country.

Mr. A. Evans: With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that on this matter we should enter into a political argument as between the two parties. I asked the hon. Gentleman in my short speech to face the dilemma of the local authorities. The Bill will force them to condone overcrowding. What are they to do?

Mr. Bevins: I am coming to that. I am not trying to escape from any of the arguments that have been advanced during the course of the debate.
The hon. Member for Widnes also asked a rather more serious question as to the position of a local authority which might entertain an application for a standard grant, approve the application and subsequently find that overcrowding exists. His question was whether in those circumstances the local authority might not be held to be abetting the offence of overcrowding in accordance with Section 78 of the Housing Act, 1957. I should like to tell the hon. Member and his hon. Friends that I have studied that question. I confess that when I first looked at it I could see no possibility at all that a local authority in those circumstances would find itself in difficulty. The legal advice which I have received is that there is no real possibility of a local authority in such circumstances committing an offence under the Housing Act. 1957.
May I now turn to the substance of what we have been debating this evening. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and some of his hon. Friends says quite simply that a local authority must be satisfied that, after the improvements have been carried out, not only shall the dwelling not be unfit for human habitation—I apologise for the double negative—but also that it shall not be statutorily overcrowded. I should like to remind the House that Clause 5 as it stands is so drafted as to ensure that public money is not spent on a house which is not worth improving because it might be pulled down within a period of fifteen years.
The submission that my right hon. Friend made, and I think rightly made, when the point was under discussion at an earlier stage was that overcrowding


is essentially a different matter from unfitness, in the sense that overcrowding does not involve the purely physical unworthiness of the house. As was said in the course of earlier debates, the powers of local authorities to deal with overcrowding are completely unimpaired by anything which is given effect to in the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
I have refreshed my memory about what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and other hon. Members in our earlier discussions, which I thought were a little clearer than the discussions which we have had this evening—though there was complete clarity on this side of the House. The anxiety expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the works of improvement might produce overcrowding and might, therefore, in certain circumstances, lead to a tenant being evicted. That is a serious argument, to which my right hon. Friend has addressed his attention in recent times. I hope I shall be forgiven if I read to the House a short extract from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering when this was last discussed. The hon. And learned Member said:
I look at this piece of Tory legislation having regard to one thing and one thing only—who will benefit in the long run. The answer in this respect is as clear as daylight. The landlord is equipped with the means of promoting overcrowding if he so wishes. Because the tenant's consent is not required, the landlord is enabled to use the provisions of the Bill to procure overcrowding and get the tenant evicted by the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 711 and 712.]
In fairness to the Government, the House will agree that in view of the Amendments which have been written into the Bill since that date there can be no serious foundation for the fears that were expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, we have written into the Bill, both as regards England and Wales and as regards Scotland, a specific provision that an application for a grant must contain the statement that the tenant has given his consent in writing to the application to carry out the standard works.
I submit in all seriousness that no tenant is likely to agree to changes which are likely to lead to overcrowding in his

home. Let us take the case of a married couple with two young boys. They may be living in a house with two main bedrooms and a small bedroom, commonly known as a boxroom. They might in those circumstances very well agree to the conversion of the small bedroom or boxroom into a separate bathroom which the house lacked. That would be perfectly reasonable. It would not involve any element of overcrowding. Quite clearly, if in the same family circumstances the house contained only two small bedrooms, the tenant would be most unlikely to agree to the conversion of one of the bedrooms into a bathroom.
I feel that we have to look at this from a common sense and realistic point of view. If I were the tenant of one of these houses, and the landlord came along with proposals to improve the property by the provision of standard amenities, quite clearly I should look at that proposal not only from the point of view of improved amenities in my home, but also from the point of view of requiring for myself, my wife and family, the necessary space and sleeping accommodation. With the best will in the world, I do not think that the Amendment, even if my right hon. Friend were able to accept it, would achieve anything worth while.
I reiterate what my right hon. Friend said when the point was before the House at an earlier stage. It would be quite wrong to make it a condition of giving a grant that there would not be overcrowding when the work is completed. In the overwhelming majority of cases this provision would be unnecessary, but in any case overcrowding, unlike unfitness, can be remedied by the ordinary processes of law and changing circumstances.
For those reasons, which I hope that the House will find acceptable, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Mitchison: On the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I began by saying that his right hon. Friend was putting forward the most monstrous suggestions and by pointing out that overcrowding is a public ill. So it is, whether in Scotland or in England. In 1935 legislation was introduced in Scotland to deal with the housing problems, and it is characteristic of the Scottish position that the Act began by


trying to deal with overcrowding. In that Act overcrowding was made a punishable offence, as it is in England.
There was another provision in that Act whereby a stock of houses had to be provided to deal with overcrowding. The reason why the 1950 Act was qualified by provisions about an appointed day was that a day cannot be appointed until half of that stock of houses has been provided. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland will look at the end of his own Act, he will find that that is so. It is the most striking testimony to the prevalence of overcrowding in Scotland and to the failure of successive British Governments of all complexions to deal with it, that there are still places in Scotland where, because the houses cannot be provided, overcrowding is not an offence, no appointed day having been made.
On paper we are a little better off in England, but it does not need anyone to tell any hon. Member, and particularly those concerned with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that in many parts of England overcrowding is a very serious matter indeed. Broadly speaking, in every large town in the country there is quite serious overcrowding, and English legislation provides that it is the duty of local authorities to ascertain what there is, to report upon it, to take steps to abate it, and further to enforce the penalties which English law puts on those who commit it or abet it.
We are told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is all right if the landlord and the tenant both want to be overcrowded; why, therefore, should the Government fail to give public money for the purpose? That, we are told, is Tory freedom. A strange light is thrown upon it from Scotland. We are dealing here with public money. The present position is that a landlord, having his tenant's consent—that has been introduced by Amendment—can go to the local authority and say, "My house fulfils the conditions for a standard grant. There are the conditions laid down in this Act of Parliament. I want a grant." The local authority replies, "But the effect of that. will be that your house will be overcrowded." The applicant says, "Yes, I know that. I know it will be an offence,

but let us wait till we come to it. Let us do nothing meanwhile. You have got to provide the public money with which I may commit an offence."
An offence is going to be committed by both the landlord and the consenting tenant. What the Government are proposing to do is not merely to promote the commission of such an offence but to promote it by the expenditure of substantial sums of public money. That, we are told, is Tory freedom. In fact, it is Tory freedom to break the law and to do it at the expense of public money. Those who desire to get overcrowding abated and dealt with, as we on this side of the House do, and who certainly do not wish that public money shall be used for the purpose of promoting overcrowding, are told that we are tyrants and oppressors.
If that is to be the argument, where are we getting to? Overcrowding may be promoted at public expense. What about all the other evils from which our cities have suffered for generations, which the Public Health Acts and the like have been brought in to prevent? Are they, too, to be aided and abetted at public expense? Are Tory Governments going to refuse the granting of public money on the ground that public health is going to be injured, or are they not? It is a precisely parallel state.
Overcrowding has been an offence for public health reasons. It is bad for people to live in overcrowded houses, just as it is bad for people to live in unfit houses. The Government are unable to separate the harm and damage that is done by an unfit house from the equally great harm and damage that may be done by allowing people to live in an overcrowded state in a perfectly good house. If that were treated merely as a matter of speculation, no one would object. We have seen stranger doctrines and thoughts come from the Tory Party. But when they allow public money to be used and refuse to protect the use of public money for what is a criminal purpose, we say that, indeed, Tory freedom leads to some remarkable consequences.
I say "criminal purpose", for look what is going to happen. Take the case which was put recently. A bathroom is put into a house that is full. Any more people added to it or any rooms removed will make it overcrowded. The result of putting in a bathroom is, as everybody


knew beforehand, that the house is overcrowded. An offence is being committed by the landlord and the tenant. It is the local authorities' duty to enforce the provisions relating to overcrowding. They will prosecute. Those who finance the commission of the offence are put by the Tory Party in the position of having to prosecute that which they themselves have permitted.

Mr. Bevins: In the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just cited, both the owner of the property and the tenant were perfectly well aware that by virtue of the improvement the house would become statutorily overcrowded. In those circumstances—most hypothetical circumstances—the tenant would know that he was running the risk of being evicted from his property.

Mr. Mitchison: We all know that. But the point is that it is said the conditions of the Bill are fulfilled and the local authority, protesting, is not allowed to refuse a standard grant because the Government will not accept the Amendment. Everyone knows that this will lead to overcrowding. We get the absurd result that at the end of the day the local authority is compelled to prosecute for an offence which it had to finance out of public money. Was there ever a more monstrous suggestion put into a Bill?—and that, by the refusal of this Amendment, is exactly what the Government are promoting. Do they really like overcrowding?
We are told that it can easily be remedied. How is it going to be remedied?—by moving people out of the house. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said in an earlier debate, where are they to go? I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the

answer to that question? Are there no people at present in London who find it somewhat difficult to get houses, who find that they are driven into unconscionable covenants because of their difficulty in getting houses, who are made to pay too much rent or who have to buy a house simply because there is a great shortage of houses in the Metropolis? Is not the position the same in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and all the large towns? Where are the people to go if, as a result of this Bill, they have to leave their houses in order to avoid committing a criminal offence?

No doubt, the money under this Bill may be well spent, but this is the same Government which has produced this shortage of houses, by decontrolling houses in London and by removing the housing subsidies. The Government must take full responsibility. As for the man driven out because he is a law-abiding person and cannot continue living in a private house, where is he to go?

7.30 p.m.

The Government know perfectly well that they must take full responsibility both for what they are doing now in financing crime out of public money and for the consequences that will happen to the people who have to move out of these houses, because, after all, it still remains crime, is this the sort of expedient that the Government have been driven to? What extraordinary folly—and to do it in the name of freedom. Freedom to commit crime is, of course, a kind of freedom, and we now know what kind of freedom Tory freedom is in this connection.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 218.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[7.32 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bowles, F. G.
Cronin, J. D.


Ainsley, J. W.
Boyd, T. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Albu, A. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, C.


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Benson, Sir George
Champion, A. J.
Diamond, John


Beswick, Frank
Chapman, W. D.
Dodds, N. N.


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cliffe, Michael
Edelman, M.


Blyton, W. R.
Clunie, J.
Edwards,Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Boardman, H.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)


Bowden, M. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)




Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Short, E. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mclnnes, J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
McLeavy, Frank
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fletcher, Eric
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Skeffington, A. M.


Forman, J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gordon Walker, nt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Snow, J. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sorensen, R. W.


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly
Mikardo, Ian
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hannan, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Moss, R.
Timmons, J.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.
Viant, S. P.


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Oram, A. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Hoy, J. H.
Owen, W. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, W. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, T. F.
Willey, Frederick


Janner, B.
Pentland, N.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don valley)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pries, S
Pursey, cmdr. H
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rankin, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Kenyon, C.
Reynolds, G. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.
Woof, R. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William



McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


McCann, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. John Taylor and




Mr. J. T. Price




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhart, Philip


Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cole, Norman
Green, A.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cooke, Robert
Grimond, J.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Armstrong, C. W,
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Ashton, H.
Corfield F. V.
Gurden, Harold


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Balniel, Lord
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Petre (Ruisiip—Northwood)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barlow, Sir John
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Batsford, Brian
Davies, Rt.Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
de Ferranti, Basil
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bingham, R. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Body, R. F.
Duncan, Sir James
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Holt, A. F.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Eillott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Hornby, R. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Braine, B. R.
Errlngton, Sir Erie
Horobin, Sir Ian


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fell, A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, John (Test)


Bryan, P.
Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gammans, Lady
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Burden, F. F. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glover, D.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'g'h, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Godber, J. B,
Iremonger, T. L.







Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shepherd, William


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Neave, Airey
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Joseph, Sir Keith
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Speir, R. M.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Oakshott, H. D.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Kimball, M.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Osborne, C.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Leburn, w. G.
Page, R. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Storey, S.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peel, w. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Teeling, W.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Pott, H. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profumo, J. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ramsden, J. E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Rawlinson, Peter
Wade, D. W.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Maddan, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wall, Patrick


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webster, David


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Marshall, Douglas
Roper, Sir Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mathew, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Russell, R. S.
Woollam, John Victor


Mawby, R. L.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.



Medlicott, Sir Frank
Sharples, R. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Whitelaw.

Orders of the Day — Clause 20.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)

Amendment proposed: In page 13, line 34, at end insert:
not be overcrowded (within the meaning of section forty-nine of the Act of 1950, which

defines overcrowding) and will".—[Miss Herbison.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 218.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Abac Leo
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holman, P.


Ainsley, d. W.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Albu, A. H.
Deer, G.
Hoy, J. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
de Freltas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Diamond, John
Hunter, A. E.


Balfour, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Benson, Sir George
Edelman, M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Beswick, Frank
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Janner, B.


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blyton, w. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&amp;St.Pncs,S.)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bowles, F. G.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Kenyon, C.


Boyd, T. C.
Fletcher, Eric
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Forman, J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Broughton, Or. A. D. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gibson, C. W.
Lindgren, C. S.


Burton, Miss F, E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grenfell. Rt. Hon. D. R.
McCann, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Champion, A. 0.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mclnnes, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Hamilton, W. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Clunle, J,
Hannan, W.
Mahon, Simon


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hastings, S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Boy


Cronin, J. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mayhew, C. P.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.


Cullen. Mrs. A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mikardo, Ian




Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, F.


Monslow, w.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Vlant, S. P.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Royle, C.
Warbey, W. N.


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Mort, D. L.
Short, E. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Moss, R.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Skeffington, A. M.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oram, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Padley, W. E.
Snow, J. W.
Williams David (Neath)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams Rt Hon T (Don Valley)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)




Paton, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Pearson, A.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Peart, T. F.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Pentland, N.
Steele, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Popplewell, E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woof, R. E.


Randall, H. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Rankin, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Zilliacus, K.


Reid, William
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Reynolds, G. W.
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, H.
Timmons, J.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Aitken, W. T.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Alport, C. J. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Duncan, Sir James
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.


Arbuthnot, John
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Leather, E. H. C.


Armstrong, C. W.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.


Ashton, H.
Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, W. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legge-Bourke. Maj. E. A. H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Balniel, Lord
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Batsford, Brian
Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Glover, D.
Loveys, Walter H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bingham, R. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Green, A.
McLean, Nell (Inverness)


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimond, J.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Body, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maddan, Martin


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bralne, B. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert(Harrow, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mathew, R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, R. L.


Bryan, P.
Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Burden, F. F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nairn, D. L. S.


Campbell, Sir David
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Neave, Airey


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Oakshott, H. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Cole, Norman
Holt, A. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, C.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Corfieid, F. V.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Peel, W. J.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Howard, John (Test)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Currie, C. B. H.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pott, H. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


de Ferranti, Basil
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Profumo, J. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, J. E.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, Peter







Redmayne, M.
Speir, R. M.
Wade, D. W.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Remnant, Hon, P.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Ridsdale, J. E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Ward, Dt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Storey, S.
Webster, David


Roper, Sir Harold
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Teeling, W.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Russell, R. S.
Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Sharpies, R. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Shepherd, William
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)



Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vane, W. M. F.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from the first "be" to "for" and insert "fit".
In Committee, I asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland to look at this matter. I expected the Secretary of State to put his name above mine on the Notice Paper to indicate that the Government were willing to accept it, but as the Secretary of State has not done that I assume that the Government do not intend to accept the Amendment. I hope that I am wrong, but that is how it appears to me at the moment.
The reason for the Amendment is that in previous housing legislation we refer to houses as being "fit for human habitation", and I should have thought that when one said that a house was "unfit for human habitation" it meant just the opposite. Apparently it does not mean that, because it appears that the Government will not accept the Amendment. The words that the Government use are
… such condition as not to he unfit for human habitation".
Why should we have this double negative? It seems to me to be perfectly logical that the words "not unfit for human habitation" mean the same as the words "fit for human habitation", so why should we clutter up our legislation with a lot of double negatives that make it more difficult to understand?
It seems to me that the Government are trying to pull a fast one on us. During our debates the Government have usually used the term "fit for human habitation", so why not use the words in this case? Is it because the Government have in mind a lower standard than is usually implied by the words "fit for human habitation"? Are we to give public money for the improvement of houses that are of a lower standard than the standard usually implied in housing

legislation when the term "fit for human habitation" is used? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us whether that is the Government's intention. If it is not, then the Government should accept the Amendment. If they do not intend to accept it, perhaps they will say how much lower in standard dwellings that receive public money can be than the standard denoted by the words "fit for human habitation".
What standard have the Government in mind when they use the words
not to be unfit for human habitation"?
How low is that standard? The Government must have a different standard in mind, otherwise the words would not be used. The existing standard in Scotland is pretty low, as the Solicitor-General himself knows. As I understand it, the term in Scotland merely means windproof and watertight, and nothing else. What does the new term mean? I think I am correct in saying that it has not appeared in previous legislation. The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, uses the term "fit for human habitation", as do the Rent Act and the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act. Are the Government so anxious to bribe people to vote for them at the forthcoming election that they are prepared to grant Government largesse to every slum racketeer in the country? That is what the Bill will do.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: No.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) would have known that had he been listening to the debates, but he has not.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Yes, I have.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is precisely what the Bill will do. I am trying to discover how rotten


a property can be and still qualify for assistance under the Bill.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will give a much more satisfactory reply on this Amendment than he did on the former Amendment, and that he will address himself to some of the arguments. Having done so, I hope that he will say that he is prepared to accept the Amendment and will give us a phrase which is more simple to understand and which fits into our normal housing legislation.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I share the dislike of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) of double negatives, but there is a reason for our choice in this case. The phrases "fit for human habitation" and "not unfit for human habitation" are not precisely the same. If the hon. Member asked me to a party, which is perhaps unlikely, and if I were asked afterwards how I had enjoyed it, if I said that it had been enjoyable I would mean one thing, but if I said that it was not unenjoyable the hon. Gentleman may feel that I was damning him with faint praise.
The point is that there are borderline cases, as I think I said on a previous occasion. The definition of "fitness" or "unfitness" is not a definition at all. It merely means that one must have regard to certain matters. If one used the phrase "not unfit", borderline cases may qualify which would not qualify if one used the word "fit", but they must come within the standard laid down in Clause 20, namely, that the local authority must be satisfied that a dwelling will remain in a not unfit state for not less than fifteen years.

Mr. Willis: This is the point that I was making. We have had unfit property in use for longer than fifteen years. By the use of this term, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should aggravate the position.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. The hon. Member must keep in mind that the property must remain not unfit for fifteen years. In deciding that, one has to go back to the 1950 Act, to the old definition, under which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one must have regard to disrepair, sanitary defects, and whether the house falls short of the provisions of any building regulations in operation in the district.
That is the reason for this slightly elastic phrase, whether one takes it in the positive or double negative form. It is to indicate to local authorities that they should give the benefit of the doubt to borderline cases. It is not a question of lowering standards.
Let us look at the matter in this way. If a tenant is in a borderline house with a life of fifteen years, if he wants a wash hand basin or a hot water system installed and the landlord can do it only if a grant is given, let us give the benefit of the doubt in a doubtful case to the tenant. I am not talking about helping the landlord; I am talking about helping the tenant. It is for that reason that we have used this phrase, which is also used in Clause 5 (2).

Mr. Willis: But not in previous housing legislation.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Not in previous housing legislation, but this is to give the benefit of the doubt to houses on the borderline. For that reason, I recommend the House not to accept the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly shown that the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were well founded. They are no longer doubts but certainties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. That Act talks about a house being fit for human habitation. The definition is so important that I shall quote it. It says:
In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a house is fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to the extent, if any, to which by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects the house falls short of the provisions of any building regulations in operation in the district.
That is a clear definition. It may be a very poor house and yet still be described as "fit for human habitation".
Now the Government say that we are to use public money from rates and taxes in order that a landlord may provide standard amenities in a house, thus increasing its value, even though it falls short of the definition of the 1950 Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of doubtful cases. Local authorities are to be forced to give the grants,


SO who will decide whether a house is fit or unfit for human habitation?
This is one of the most atrocious provisions of the Bill and was clearly shown to be atrocious by the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. People in Scotland will not miss this. They have realised for long how hard the Government have been on the finances of local authorities and on the tenants of council houses. I wish that the Government had shown to landlords the attitude which they have shown to publicly-elected bodies which have done their best to provide decent housing in Scotland.
The Government's attitude is shocking. I do not know whether we can persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman to change that attitude, but it is shocking that the Government should give grants for houses which are not what we would call fit for human habitation—and that is what this provision means. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that "not unfit for human habitation" meant something less than "fit for human habitation". We have had many instances of the Government's lack of regard for the housing needs of Scotland, and this is just another example and one of the most atrocious instances of their lack of consideration for the Scottish people.

Mr. H. Hynd: With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), the best speech in support of the Amendment was that made by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The House will remember that he used as an illustration an invitation to a party. He said that to say that such a party was not unenjoyable would have been to damn it with faint praise. That is surely intended to show that to say a house is not unfit for human habitation is to damn the house with faint praise.
What he said, in effect, was that the house would not be fit for human habitation. That is the only lesson to be drawn from his illustration. He said that "not unfit" was the same as "fit". It is a long time since I was at school, but I was taught that a double negative meant a positive. If that is not the case, we are entitled to a further explanation, not only for the sake of clarity, but for the

sake of having the Bill in a reasonable form. I hope that the Government will change the phrase to "fit for human habitation" instead of the present ambiguous phrase which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself pointed out, would damn a house with faint praise.

Mr. Ede: I have never heard an explanation, even from a lawyer, which filled me with more dismay. I have been engaged in housing work for many years and I have always understood that houses were fit or unfit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that on one side of fitness there was a borderline and that if a house was on that borderline, it was to be regarded as not unfit. How wide is that borderline? My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) read the definition from the 1950 Act which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had paraphrased. How many of those things can be wanting in a house for the house still to be regarded as not unfit? That is a problem which will face local authorities and the Ministry when they deal with this matter.
I should have thought that as late in the Christian era as 1959 we would not have wanted Scotland to get to the position where "not unfit" is said to mean something less than "fit". This is a departure from standards which all reasonable local sanitary authorities have been trying to establish for years.
There is no English Law Officer present, but I do not think that the phrase "not unfit" occurs in English public health legislation.

Mr. Willis: It is in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The phrase is the same in the corresponding English Clause. I have noted that no hon. or right hon. Gentleman representing an English constituency thought fit to raise the matter until it was raised on a Scottish Amendment.

Mr. Ede: So much the better for the Scots for once. I do not like English law being made to approximate to Scottish law, but if we are both going wrong together, let us save at any rate one group from going over the precipice. This is an exceedingly retrograde step and I hope that even now


the Government will see fit to withdraw from the position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to defend.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 159.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimond, J.
Oakshott, H, D.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Orr- Capt. L. P. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, C.


Ashton, H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, R. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. w.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Partridge, E.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Peel, W. J.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bataford, Brian
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pitman, I. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. w.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pott, H. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bingham, R. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Profumo, J. D.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ramsden, J. E.


Body, R. F.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Rawlinson, Peter


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Redmayne, M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, B. R.
Howard, John (Test)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, R. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharpies, R. C.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cole, Norman
Kimball, M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Leather, E. H. C.
Speir, R. M.


Corfield, F.V.
Leavey, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leburn, W. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Teeling, W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Temple, John M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)



Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


de Ferrantl, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Donaldson. Cmdr. c. E. McA.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Wade, D. w.


Duncan, Sir James
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wall, Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Fell, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Finlay, Graeme
Marshall, Douglas
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Mathew, R.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, R. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, D.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woollam, John Victor


Godber, J. B.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey



Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Green, A.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Mr. Gibson-Watt.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.


Ainsley, J. W.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Boardman, H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Benson, Sir George
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Blackburn, F.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. w.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blenkinsop, A.
Bowles, F. G.




Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goote)
Royle, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Sorensen, R. W.


Cronin, J. D.
McCann, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mclnnes, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Diamond, John
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Dodds, N. N.
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thornton, E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.
Witley, Frederick


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A.M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paton, John
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.
Woof, R. E.


Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Yates, V, (Ladywood)


Hoy, J. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. J. T. Price.


Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, after "habitation", to insert:
and free from any sanitary defects".
After what we heard when we were discussing the previous Amendment, it seems to me that it is of the greatest importance that we should add these words:
and free from any sanitary defects.
Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland will enable us to shorten this discussion by saying that the Government are ready to accept this Amendment, and I shall be glad to give way to enable him to do so.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: indicated dissent.

Miss Herbison: From the movement of his head I gather that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is indicating that the Government will not accept this Amendment. Therefore, we shall have

grants given for houses which are not quite fit for habitation. houses which have sanitary defects.
In Section 184 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, there is a definition of "sanitary defects". It states that sanitary defects "includes lack of air space". If there is not sufficient air space for a family in a house, will the Government force a local authority to give the landlord money to improve that house with standard amenities? Because that is what the Solicitor-General for Scotland means by shaking his head.
The next definition is, "or of ventilation". I know some houses in Glasgow which, with the best will in the world, could not be described as properly ventilated. Is that the kind of house for which a landlord is to receive a grant? The next definition refers to "darkness". We know of houses in which the tenants have lived all their lives and rarely seen the sun streaming through their windows.


That is a sanitary defect. Do the Government propose to give money to the landlords of such houses in order that standard amenities may be provided in them?
The next reference is to "dampness". When I go to some villages in my constituency I am invited into houses to see the dampness in the bottom of the house and the dampness crawling up the walls. A large amount of money is spent by Scottish housewives on redoration. That is one of the sanitary defects listed in the 1950 Act. Are the Government ready to give a grant to the landlords of these houses in order that amenities may be introduced into buildings of that kind?
Another definition is the
absence of adequate and readily accessible water supply".
If the standard amenities are provided, that also must be provided. The definition refers to
sanitary arrangements or of other conveniences.
The term "other conveniences" can cover many things. The last part of the definition refers to
adequate paving or draining of courts, yards or passages.
When we discussed sanitary defects during the debates on the 1950 Act we considered not only what was to be found inside a house but also the surroundings. Are the Government ready to provide landlords with grants in respect of houses where the outside is in a miserable state?
I do not know whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland has seen some of these places, but he could find them in any of the back courts in Glasgow. He could see some in the villages in my constituency. I could take him to many villages in North Lanarkshire and show him houses where the surroundings are dreadful. These things are listed in the 1950 Act as sanitary defects. Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Government prepared to say that, even if houses have one or more of these sanitary defects, local authorities will still be forced to give grants to the landlords?
During the whole of our discussions on this Bill the Government have shown a disregard of the needs of the tenants and the need to conserve the money of the ratepayers and taxpayers. The only people for whom the Government have

shown any regard are the landlords, and particularly the poorer landlords. I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to think again about this matter and to accept what is a small but a very important Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I sympathise with the motives which have prompted the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and her hon. Friends to put down this Amendment. Despite her researches into the 1950 Act, which she knows so well, I do not think the hon. Lady has sufficiently taken into account the fact that under the provisions of this Bill, in deciding whether a house is not unfit for human habitation, a local authority must look at the sanitary defects. Under Section 184 (2) of the 1950 Act, which is, so to speak, incorporated in this Bill, regard must be had to sanitary defects, which are as the hon. Lady quoted.
Accordingly, when deciding whether to give a grant and whether the first part of that Section has been complied with, the local authority will look at these matters. If the defects are not grave, although it is a case where a house does not comply in all respects with modern standards, the tenants living under those conditions will be able to have the amenities provided by the landlord and thereby will benefit.
The hon. Lady talked about her visits to villages in her constituency and of hearing complaints about darkness, dampness and the like. Has she ever asked any of her constituents whether they would prefer to have a washbasin installed in the house, if they have not already got one, or whether they would prefer to have an indoor water closet, if they do not already have one? The effect of her Amendment would be that, by reason of sanitary defects, perhaps not grave ones, tenants would be precluded from having these amenities which they might want.

Miss Herbison: The Solicitor-General for Scotland keeps reiterating, "not grave defects." I invite him to look at the definition of sanitary defects in the 1950 Act, and if he can give one which would not be a grave defect I should like to know about it, because I have not been able to find one.

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One simple example is where the ventilation is slightly defective.

Mr. John Paton: The Act does not say "slightly".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: "Sanitary defects" includes—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to continue my speech. The definition in the Act is that "sanitary defects" includes
lack of air space or of ventilation".
That means that a slight defect in ventilation comes under that definition. There are cases where the sanitary defect may be small, but by the Amendment a slight defect in ventilation, by the window being just too small by normal standards or the air space slightly below modern standards, would exclude any possibility of the tenant's benefiting by the amenities which can be put in under the Bill.
If the defects are serious, the local authority can and will say that the house is unfit for human habitation and accordingly will not give a grant. If there are serious sanitary defects, the local authority will and must refuse to give grants under the Bill. If there are very slight ones, the local authority can say, "The house is not unfit, and provided we are satisfied that it will remain so for another 15 years we can give a grant".
Let it be kept in mind, when we hear so much about landlords—we always do hear about them on these occasions—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The Bill is about landlords.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. and learned Gentleman rather gives the whole thing away because this is not a Bill about landlords entirely. It will benefit tenants as well. [Interruption.] Certainly, it will. I am not unsympathetic to the point of view expressed by the hon. Lady, but the effect of her Amendment, even if it prevented the landlord from getting a grant, would equally prevent the tenant from doing so. We must look at it from the tenant's point of view. The Amendment would be to the detriment of the tenant.

Mr. Ede: The Solicitor-General for Scotland instanced a slight defect here and there. If every one of the sanitary conditions in a house is slightly defective,

is the house still eligible? How many slight defects have there to be before the house becomes ineligible?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is for the local authority to say, in the light of the particular case, as it does now. In deciding whether a house is fit or unfit it has to look at all the sanitary defects, in the house as a whole.

Mr. Ede: The local authority may have to take counsel's opinion in every case.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If that is so, local authorities should have been taking counsel's opinion under every Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1950 RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.)

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 15, line 43, to leave out "ten" and to insert "fifteen".
The Bill amends existing Scottish housing legislation, including Section 114 (1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. That Section lays down certain conditions which have to be observed in respect of financial assistance by way of improvement grant. I do not propose to enumerate the conditions laid down in that Section. The main alteration is that Section 114 provides for a period of twenty years whereas the Bill reduces that period to ten years.
The conditions provide that a dwelling-house
shall not be used for purposes other than those of a private dwelling-house
and that
the dwelling shall not be occupied except by the owner thereof or a tenant.
Other conditions laid down relate to the rent and the proper maintenance of the dwelling-house. The important point is that these conditions have to be observed for twenty years, while the Bill seeks to reduce the period to ten years.
During the Committee stage we endeavoured to have the period put back to twenty years, but the Joint Under-Secretary of State met the arguments which we advanced by indicating what I will quote


from the proceedings in Committee on 18th February. He said:
One of the conditions of the standard grant is that after the work has been done a dwelling shall last for no less than fifteen years.
In other words, after improvements have been given effect to, it is a condition that the dwelling shall last for a period of not less than fifteen years. The Joint Under-Secretary of State proceeded to argue hat it was illogical on our part
to attach conditions to the grant which continue for twenty years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1959: Vol. 600, c. 477.]
In the Amendment we suggest that the period should be fifteen instead of ten years. We suggest fifteen years for the simple reason that not only do we now meet the arguments adduced by the Joint Under-Secretary, but we bring the matter into line in relation to the conditions of the standard grant itself. In other words, the standard grant is for a period of fifteen years and the conditions we seek to impose after approval has been given to the standard grant will also be fifteen years.
I assume that, as we have conceded the point to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the Solicitor-General for Scotland will now be disposed to accept our Amendment. Or will he? After witnessing his performance during our proceedings today, I have come to the conclusion that he came here, not to give consideration to the merits of the Amendments we have proposed, but with a blank mind and a definite intention to turn them down without rhyme, reason or logic. On many Amendments this afternoon he has had absolutely no case. He is himself fully conscious of that. Now I am proposing one which meets the desire of his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and fulfils the requirements he thought necessary.
I should remind the Solicitor-General that public money is involved in this matter and where public money is involved we are justified in laying down certain conditions which have to be observed to put the matter on a proper and sensible basis. I move the Amendment in the very faint hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now see his way to accept it.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), but I do not think that that will be entirely unexpected. I do not think his deductions from what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said, as reported in column 477 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 18th February, are entirely accurate, because my hon. Friend also said:
… we have suggested a period of ten years for exactly the same reasons as those which led to the use of ten years in the English legislation. We want as much improvement as we can get, and we think that ten years is the right period and that twenty years acts as a deterrent, since such a period is too long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 477.]
Then the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) brought in the question of fifteen years. It is clear that my right hon. Friend stated that he regarded ten years as the appropriate period. We do not like necessarily to follow England and we are not doing so, but it would be unfair if an applicant for a grant in Scotland were in a worse position than an applicant south of the Border.

Mr. 'McInnes: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend at this late hour to attempt to induce us along the line that Scottish people will be worse off than English or vice versa. He knows that Scottish housing legislation has always been entirely different from that south of the Border, in respect of subsidies and indeed in respect of all aspects of housing legislation. There is no reason that we should slavishly follow England's bad example on this occasion.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not following England's example, good or bad. I appreciate that Scottish housing legislation has been very different from that in England. I appreciate that we do very much better out of subsidies than do people south of the Border. Why should we not do just as well out of this provision? Why should the applicant and the tenant in Scotland be in a worse position than the applicant and the tenant in England?
The period is a matter of judgment. We could argue until the cows come home about it. For obvious reasons we


have to fix a certain period and the question is, how long? Ten years seems to us to be a fair period. As far as I know, it has worked in England, and I believe that it will help in Scotland if we stick to ten years and do not accept the compromise of fifteen years.

Mr. Willis: That was a very disappointing reply, although I am bound to say that it was a little better than the two previous replies from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He forgets that in Scotland we also have a reputation for being careful with public money and for looking at the public money we spend much more carefully than is done in England. My experience on the Estimates Committees over the ten years is that we are far more careful administrators than are the English. I think that that is to our credit. I am not blaming anyone. It is a different national attitude.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can my hon. Friend show some evidence of this?

Mr. Willis: I should be out of order if I began to deal with the reports of the various Estimates Committees. I am dealing with the Amendment and in doing so am pointing out that we have a reputation for handling public money with care.

Mr. Ellis Smith: When my hon. Friend says that they are more careful than we are, does he include himself?

Mr. Willis: In these circumstances, yes. On the other hand, on Saturday I shall be supporting Norwich City.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will recollect, when we originally discussed this issue we increased the period from ten years. That was done when it was introduced in 1949, as a result of a fairly long discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee. At that time, we thought that ten years was a very short life for a house. If we were spending large sums of public money upon it, we felt that we ought to have a longer period and that we ought to have some guarantee that the public money that was being spent would provide good accommodation for longer than ten years.
8.45 p.m.
After all, these works are, by and large, fairly expensive works. They are large improvement works, not simply the putting in a kitchen sink or something of that character. The type of improvement that we visualised in Scotland, for instance, in Glasgow or Edinburgh, was the taking over of blocks of tenement property, wiping out a certain number of houses and the rebuilding of them in order to provide fewer houses. This is fairly expensive work, and we felt at that time—and the Conservative Party was also of the same opinion at that time—that if we were to do all this, we ought to have some guarantee that it would last for a reasonable period.
The suggestion was made and adopted at that time that the period should be twenty years. I am quite prepared to accept that at this time of day it might seem to be rather too long, but I am not altogether certain about that. After all, fifteen years is not a very long time in the life of a house, but, even if that were so, why the sudden drop to ten years?

Mr. Ross: It has taken ten years to catch up with them.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they do this in England, but that is no reason why we should do the same as is done in England. We want to legislate in accordance with our own conditions, not in accordance with conditions south of the Border. I should have thought that ten years was a very short period of time when we are embarking upon the fairly large expenditure of public money, and that we ought to look to a rather longer return for that money than ten years.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not provide us with any examples of how this provision for twenty years was holding up work in Scotland. It would have been far more effective if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have said, "We have a large number of cases, from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, where work is being held up because of this provision," but that is just not true. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any case in mind in which the work has been held up because the period has been too long? I will sit down in order that he may tell us.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot give the hon. Member precise examples, because this is not my Departmental side. I can only say that twenty years has been a deterrent, and obviously it is. People are unwilling to embark on something which ties them up under rather stringent conditions for a period of twenty years.

Mr. Willis: The right hon and learned Gentleman may not have the information, but he has two Joint Under-Secretaries behind him who could come to the Box and give the information, instead of which he says, "I have no information; I have no cases to give the hon. Member, but I understand—"and so on. We can understand whatever we like, and I am rather inclined to think that he simply understands this because the English have done it. There has surely been no demand for it from Scotland, and I cannot say—I do not know about my hon. Friends—that I remember any local authority association asking for the period to be shortened. Has the County Councils Association asked, and what did it ask for? I do not know, but I certainly have received no representations. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman received any representations?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is most unhelpful at the Box. He rarely has any information to give us, and rarely answers arguments which we put forward. He expects us to accept what he puts forward as a sort of opinion. That is not good enough for a Minister, and I am quite sure that he would not treat the Court of Session in Edinburgh in that fashion. I am sure that he would not appear before judges in Edinburgh in the same slapdash manner that he adopts here. He could give us a much better answer than we have had up to now and which we do not accept.

Miss Herbison: It is evident that the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not

intend to say anything more on this Amendment. I understand his difficulty resulting from the illness of his colleagues in the Scottish Office, but it would have been very simple for him to have found out the basic reasons for the Government not wishing to accept the Amendment. He has told us that it was thought that ten years was the appropriate period, but we have been given no reason for that.

At another time, he described the ten years as a fair period, but, again, no reasons were adduced for that statement. He told us that he did not want Scotland to be worse off than South of the Border. Who was it in Scotland that he did not want to be worse off?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was thinking of the tenant as well as the landlord.

Miss Herbison: We do not accept it. On a previous Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about sanitary defects, and so on. We feel that when public money is being given, the most careful safeguards should be put on it. It was only after very serious consideration during the passage of the 1950 Act that it was decided that the period should be twenty years. That was not inserted just by Government spokesmen saying that this or that was appropriate. It was well argued, and reasons were adduced for making it a period of twenty years.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that we were better off on subsidies in Scotland than was the case south of the Border. That is a strange claim to be made by any Scottish Minister, because we are very much worse off in that respect than we were in 1951. We have had no satisfaction at all on this Amendment, and we must put it to the vote.

Question put, That "ten" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 155.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Batsford, Brian
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bryan, P.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bingham, R. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Ashton, H.
Bishop, F. P.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Black, Sir Cyril
Cary, Sir Robert


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Body, R. F.
Channon, H. P. G.


Balniel, Lord
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barber, Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Braine, B. R.
Cole, Norman




Cooke, Robert
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Corfield, F. V.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pott, H. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster. Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)
Iremonger, T. L.
Profumo, J. D.


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, J. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, Peter


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, M.


Digby, simon wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, J. E.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kimball, M.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, E. H. c.
Robson, Brown, Sir William


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leavey, J A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duncan, Sir James
Leburn, W. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Errington, Sir Eric
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Hon, James (Devon, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Finlay Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sharples, R. C.


Fisher, Nigal
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Speir, R. M.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Glover, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Godber J. B
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Storey, S.


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maddan, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Teeling, W.


Green, A.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Temple, John M.


Grimond, J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mathew, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, R. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wade, D. W.


Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Webster, David


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, C,
Woollam, John Victor


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)



Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peel, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. J. k. B. Hill and


Howard, John (Test)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Ainsley, J. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hastings, S.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cronin, J. D.
Hayman, F. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Grossman, R. H. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies Stephen (Merthyr)
Herbison, Miss M.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Delargy, H. J,
Holman, P.


Benson, Sir George
Diamond, John
Hoy, J. H.


Blackburn, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, A. E.


Boardman, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Janner, B.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bowles, F. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Boyd, T. C.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Brockway, A, F.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Kenyon, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
King, Dr. H. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lindgren, G. S.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Cliffs, Michael
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine valley)
McCann, J.


Clunie, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)
Hannan, W.
Mclnnes, J.







McKay, John (Wallsend)
Popplewell, E.
Thornton, E.


McLeavy, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mahon, Simon
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfd, E.)
Rankin, John
Warbey, W. N.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reynolds, G. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Mason, Roy
Rhodes, H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mayhew, C. P,
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Royle, C.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Moody, A. S.
Short, E. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mort, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Moss, R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, A.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Willey, Frederick


Mulley, F. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Oram, A. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Padley, W. E.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Steele, T,
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Woof, R. E.


Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Paton, John
Sylvester, G. O.



Peart, T. F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pentland, N.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


Plummer, sir Leslie
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has made good progress with this Bill, which had its Second Reading on 15th December. Since then my right hon. Friend has accepted a number of improvements at the suggestion of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for those suggestions my right hon. Friend is grateful.
Our debates, on the whole—in fact, almost without exception—have been useful and good humoured. If they have riot been exciting, at any rate they have been enlivened by many contributions from the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) who has shown considerable tenacity in her pursuit of non-discrimination by the building societies on grounds of sex; by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) whose fund of knowledge we now know extends to sanitary engineering or, as he prefers to call it, plumbing; and by the express speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) whose velocity must be as great a trial to the Official Reporters as are the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Finally, I ought to say that the speeches contributed by hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies have been neither prolix nor obscure. In saying that, I am perhaps making amends.
I think we all regret the absence from the debate this evening of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and of my hon. Friend the Joint

Under-Secretary of State because they have both taken a very keen and close interest in this legislation.
It has long been the view of the Government, including my right hon. Friend, and of my party as a whole—and I believe of the party opposite as well—that home ownership ought to be encouraged. This Bill follows a number of steps which have been taken by post-war Governments with this end in view. Some years ago the licensing system which controls the building of private houses for sale was abolished. In 1952 the development charge was done away with—we think rightly so. On three separate occasions Stamp Duty on the conveyance of house property has been reduced, and the purchaser of a house valued at £3,500 or less is not now liable for Stamp Duty.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought that a debate on Third Reading was related entirely to things that are in the Bill. So far, none of the things mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary is in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was getting very concerned about the hon. Member's references to other Measures. I hope they are only passing references.

Mr. Bevins: I was just coming to the Bill. I was about to say that the House might like to know as part of the background of this Bill—

Mr. Ross: That is Second Reading stuff, not Third Reading.

Mr. Bevies: I shall be very brief about this and do not require instructions from the hon. Gentleman.
Between 1952 and 1958 the value of local authority advances under the Housing Acts was doubled and the value of building society's advances raised by about 30 per cent. Moreover, since the end of the war nearly 900,000 private enterprise houses have been built for sale and of these over 700,000 have been built since 1951. We have now reached a position in which about 4 million people own their own homes. The Government are anxious to see these figures increased. This Bill is probably—

Mr. Ross: Remember the time.

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so impatient; it is quite unnecessary.
This Bill is probably the greatest single Measure to help home ownership that has ever been introduced by a British Government, and it is, I think, a great tribute both to the motives and the industry of my right hon. Friend. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh. I am trying to make a non-contentious speech. If hon. Members opposite want a contentious speech, I am quite prepared to engage them. All I am saying is that this Measure faces up squarely to the difficulty that at the present time it just is not possible for all the people in this country who are anxious to buy a house to obtain a mortgage because not enough money is available for that purpose.
We on this side of the House believe that once this Bill is law it ought to be possible for any creditworthy borrower to get an adequate mortgage, and my right hon. Friend believes that the Bill will help to promote a big expansion in home ownership. One condition which will govern Exchequer advances to building societies is that the house must have been built before 1919 and its value must not be more than £2,500 or, in London, £3,000.
One of the side effects of this scheme will be to free more of the building societies' own funds for advances on other houses, either more modern houses or more expensive ones. The Government's object in Parts II and III of the Bill is to simplify the existing scheme of grants in the hope and belief that this will lead to a big expansion in works of improvement,

and I believe that that is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The main change, of course, is the introduction of the new standard grant for specified standard amenities as a matter of right to the applicant. The Bill also goes on to simplify the grant arrangements for improvement work carried out by local authorities. We are not making parallel changes for local authorities in Scotland, for reasons which were very adequately explained on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
There is no doubt at all that, in the past, the conditions tied to grants have deterred many people from seeking grants. For that reason, my right hon. Friend has modified the conditions, reducing to ten years the period during which conditions must be observed and enabling the owner of an improved house to sell it after three years without giving rise to the liability to repay grant. It is the Government's hope that the system of standard grants will be extensively used not only by owner occupiers but also by the owners of tenanted properties. Indeed, the importance of this was very clearly underlined by my right hon. Friend in a speech he made earlier in our proceedings today.
I think I can fairly say that the objectives of the Bill have been, broadly speaking, welcomed by both sides of the House, and certainly by the public at large outside. If, as we believe, the Bill succeeds both in promoting home ownership and in improving the living conditions of many of our people, it will be a well worthwhile Measure.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: It is not without amusement that I rise to reply on the Third Reading of the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership ever introduced by any British Government. My own colloquial name for the Bill has always been the "Building Societies and Baths Bill". There have been other Measures.

Mr. Lindgren: The Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.

Mr. Mitchison: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) reminds me, there have been the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.

Mr. Lindgren: Back to 1899.

Mr. Mitchison: There have been various Housing Acts also which contained provisions to promote home ownership. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for his kind and proper attribution to my party of the Measures it took in that direction, including, for instance, improvement grants legislation which it was the first to think of and put into law.
I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. This, of course, is an electioneering Bill, and one has to say all one can about it. Blow the trumpet, and blow it loud—if it rings a bit hollow at times, that will all pass. Election fever has descended upon the hon. Gentleman, and there we are. We hear some extravagant phrases. I will reassure him at once. We do not propose to vote against the Bill. Everything is perfectly all right; he will get his Bill, and get it without any opposition. But I wonder what the results will be. That is really what interests me.
Let us look for a moment at the building societies. Of course, the building societies have their price. They will receive trustee status for their deposits. That is the quid pro quo. In return, they are to lend money on oldish houses. They are to receive Government funds, to a very considerable extent, for the purpose. There is no particular objection to all this, but how much difference will it make? The Government have been very coy about figures. We have not been told what the societies are doing already. We happen to know about the Halifax because the Halifax figures have been provided. The Halifax Building Society is already lending a little under a third, or a little over a quarter—whichever way one puts it—of its funds on this type of house. We know that other building societies are making considerable advances in that direction. There it is. There will, no doubt, be some addition, but how much one cannot say.
The next provision in the Bill is the one which is to assist the local authorities. This is the provision allowing them to make additional advances. But they are not to have public money under this Bill. There are no provisions for them about the rate of interest which is to be charged to them. They are to be left, for their

money, to chase round in the jungle of mortgages and what not, which seems to be their main source for funds nowadays, to see what they can manage under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Acts.
I am not complaining unduly. I merely point out to the Government what an opportunity they have missed. All that they have done is to lend a lot of public money to building societies, and any contribution or help to local authorities is not very considerable. Indeed, we were told by the Minister on Second Reading that the Government had deliberately chosen the building societies as their instrument. I am not altogether surprised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) once described the local authorities as the Government's whipping boy. They are not quite the right people for a Tory Government to choose in a desire to help the business of lending money to people who want to buy or improve their houses.
I now come to the next part of the Bill, the baths section. I must thank the right hon. Gentleman. He has given us a hand basin. He has overcome the almost insuperable difficulty of defining the kitchen sink and providing that the hot water supply should be connected to it as well as to the bath or shower. Those, of course, are considerable concessions. It is something that a Tory Government recognise the importance of clean hands. We say, "Thank you", and we are very grateful.
There are, however, some things in the Bill that are still a little odd. For the first time, local authorities are obliged to make improvement grants under certain very limited conditions. It may be impossible for the work to be carried out, but they still have to make the grant. It may be that overcrowding will result, but they still have to make the grant. It may be that there will be a breach of the law, but they still have to make the grant. The compulsory element has been introduced in the name of Tory freedom by the party opposite.
Improvement grants are of old standing and any single one of the things provided in the Bill could have been provided previously at the discretion of local authorities. But the whipping boy cannot be trusted to exercise his discretion properly, and therefore it is now made obligatory.


No one objects. We know that there are some very backward councils, including most of those controlled by the Tories, and it will no doubt be a good thing that they should be obliged to make grants for these standard amenities. We are certainly very grateful for any Measure that will promote the modernisation of houses which are hopelessly out of date and quite inadequate as a result of the industrial revolution and the subsequent activities and deficiencies of private landlords.
For all that, we are very grateful, but we are bound to say that that is not the whole of the story. The right hon. Gentleman has met us in one other respect. He has at last provided in the Bill—and we thank him for it—that improvements cannot be carried out if the tenant does not want them. That is a step in advance. But there is one hitch in the machinery. A landlord could have applied for these grants at any time and I would say, perhaps having more respect for local authorities than the Government appear to have, that in most cases a landlord who so applied would have received the grant.
The landlord has never applied in the past, so that there are still many houses which lack standard amenities. Why did not the landlord apply? Was it because he was frightened of the local council? I do not think so. The main reason why he did not apply was because he had to pay half the cost.
The interesting question will be whether the Bill will prove to be the greatest single Measure to promote hand-basins which has ever been introduced by any Government. We shall have to see whether it works that way, or whether, as I suspect, the reluctance or inability of landlords to cough up the remaining half—and I trust that "cough up" is not too grossly unparliamentary—of the cost will continue to hinder the somewhat miraculous results which the Government are prone to expect to result from the Bill.
My own belief is that landlords are much as they were before. Some are good and some are bad, like the rest of us. Some are wealthy and some are poor, some are companies and some are individuals. The number of landlords who failed to make necessary improvements in the past because they did not

feel like putting up half the cost, or because they were unable to do so, are likely to remain in much the same position, even though entitled to a grant from a local authority.
Having some confidence in local authorities, I do not believe that the Bill will make that amount of difference. In most cases the authorities would have provided the grants already and if they would not have provided the grants, the only reason would have been that they were very restricted in their finances by reason of a matter which is not in the Bill and which I must therefore not discuss, the credit squeeze in the broadest sense of the term.
It is up to the Government to tell us that the Bill will be a great success. What Government could resist the temptation? They put one or two other little things in the Bill. They have whittled down the provisions which were intended to ensure that owners of property do not get public money with which to improve their houses and then, having got that public money, dispose of the houses. It is completely wrong that after so short a period as three years, someone should be enabled to get a higher price for his property because the Government and local authorities between them have paid a substantial part of the cost of necessary improvements.
I cannot believe that that is right. I cannot think that the conditions which have brought about amendments to what was originally planned have anything to do with the housing situation or with the landlord-tenant position, or anything else but the tender regard which the Tory Party always has for the owners as distinct from the tenants of house property.
Summing up at the end of the day, the Bill may not amount to much, but I hope that the Government will tell us what they expect from it. This is said to be the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership, or hand-basins, which has ever been introduced by any British Government. Perhaps the Government will tell us what they expect to happen. How many houses will be provided with hand-basins, baths, hot water supplies and what not as a result of the Bill? Can we be given any figures, or have the Government simply done a little guessing? Is there any estimate


which the Government have considered of the results likely to follow, financial results, for instance? Can they give any figures of the amount by which advances made by building societies on the type of properties we are considering will be increased?
Confidentially, I should like to make a small wager with the House. I do not think that we shall get those figures from the Government. I think that the odds against getting them are roughly 100 to 1. The Bill will make a small contribution and no doubt lead to further advances where advances should be made. It will undoubtedly lead to some improvement which will make the houses concerned better places to live in.
If we feel somewhat critical of the balance of advantage, if we feel that in relation to those improvements the landlord is getting far more out of it in the long run than the man who has to live in the house, and if we feel, too, that the continued existence of some of these houses is due largely to deficiencies of the Government's own housing policy, none the less we must welcome the Bill—but not too much; not exaggerating, and not playing this electoral trumpet, but supposing that, at the end of the day, it is a move in the right direction, although it is made with the right hon. Gentleman casting one eye over his shoulder at the agglomerated landlords of England and anxious that they, at any rate, shall get their whack out of the Bill.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am sure that in welcoming the Bill as a whole we all congratulate the Minister on what he has done to help people to buy their own houses and to improve their homes up to the minimum standard. Perhaps it is as well that I should be out of order if I told my right hon. Friend that I thought that he could have improved his method of achieving the first of those objects. Alas, the house purchase part of the Bill is still the same. If it had weaknesses before, they are still there, despite the suggestions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that we all agree with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his reference to the improvements made to the Bill during its previous stages, but again, alas, improvements were not made to the first part of the Bill.
We still have the same percentage of free reserves which is too low. There is still the same objection to starting at 1½ per cent. The percentage is fixed and is in no way related to other factors. We still have a lower limit of £500,000 in respect of building societies involved. That sum is fixed without any regard to other factors, such as reserves and liquidity, and many smaller societies which have made a valuable contribution to the movement as a whole are still excluded.
The interest rates are still tied to the Association's recommended rate, and the Bill still excludes some building societies from taking part in the Government's scheme. I wish that I could say that we were still excluding only one building society, but since the Bill was introduced that figure has risen to three. The Leicester and Queen Anne Building Societies have reduced their rates of interest to 5½ per cent., thereby helping the people who want to borrow money to buy their homes, but at the same time they have excluded themselves from the Government's scheme.
I have not been altogether convinced by the Minister's arguments, except in one respect. I agree that it is right to tie the question of trustee status for deposits to the scheme for Government grants. As far as I can see, the ½ per cent. ratio which the building societies get is not enough to enable them to finance this work out of the grant itself, but the difference can be made up by the extra funds which will accrue to them through trustee status.
It is also possible that we have exaggerated the effect of what has been called putting some societies in a second division. It is the smaller societies which are affected, and to some extent the fact that they cannot have trustee status for their deposits is not so important, in that they rely very much upon local resources, and their local reputation will not be affected by not being given trustee status.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has underestimated the effect that trustee status will have for building societies lending money on this type of house. A lot of Amendments have been proposed to Parts II and III of the Bill and many to Part I, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend


the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) on being the only hon. Members on either side of the House who have had Amendments accepted.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend in his difficulty. The conditions for trustee status and the agreement which the Building Societies Association made to keep to the conditions to qualify for loan were worked out before the Bill was drafted, and this is a demonstration of the difficulty of introducing legislation which depends upon agreement with outside bodies. Obviously, such legislation cannot be altered during the Committee stage: there is no time to consult those bodies. However, the Minister has done the next best thing. He has made the position as flexible as possible, and the conditions can be altered without further legislation.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done. I beg him to keep an eye on these matters and to keep the rate of interest, the size of the societies qualifying and the percentage of free reserves under constant review.

9.32 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I am hoping that the Minister will be able to clear up two points for me before we give a Third Reading to the Bill. In Part I of the Bill, relating to "Loans for Purchase of Houses," it states:
Where the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies … is satisfied that a permanent building society fulfils such requirements as to its assets and liabilities, liquid funds, reserves, and other matters, as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe, he may designate the society for the purposes of this section …
I wish to refer to the term "other matters" because, in reply to a Question from me on 24th February, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement which obviously comes under this heading. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Representatives of the Building Societies Association have suggested—and I welcome this—that the agreement to be signed by building societies before they may receive Government money should provide that mortgages will be granted under the scheme without distinction of sex. All societies participating in the scheme will be required to sign the same agreement, whether or not they are members

of the Building Societies Association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 942.]
Obviously that is an "other matter" as mentioned in this Bill.
I am not clear about the attitude of the Building Societies Association in this matter, and I find it very difficult to follow them. The House will remember that on 10th December the Building Societies Association stated:
… the policy of most of its members is to treat a woman applicant for a loan in exactly the same way as a man if she is in regular employment and earning a sufficient income. In such cases there is no discrimination on grounds of sex and no male guarantor is normally required.
On 15th December, in replying to a debate in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
It may well be … that notwithstanding instructions that are issued from the head offices of building societies the administrative action taken in the provinces may be at variance with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 886.]
With that I entirely accede. But on 13th February, following an inquiry which had been made by the Building Societies Association, in turn following detailed evidence which had been given by me in this House, the Association issued a statement. It was made known on the radio and in the Press. I have here the Evening Standard, which had a headline:
How should women rank for home loans?
Equally with men, say building societies.
It goes on to say:
Are women treated less favourably than men by building societies when they want a loan for home buying? The Building Societies Association answers this question today. 'In a normal case, a woman applicant for a loan is treated in exactly the same way as a man,' it declares. Recently doubts have been raised on this.
I think the last statement was remarkably succinct.
I take the Evening News headline of the same day. It says:
News … views … prices … dividends
Then it says, underneath:
No reason to bar women borrowers
It goes on:
'Any general allegation that the building societies discriminate against women borrowers should be viewed with a great deal of scepticism,' declares the Building Societies Association.


The last sentence I want to quote is this:
This declaration",—
by the Building Societies Association—
will set at rest the doubts of many of my woman readers who have been feeling that they are getting a hard deal.
I find that very difficult. The statement made by the Building Societies Association has a familiar ring. I am sure the Minister will agree that we are right back where we started before the first debate and to the statement that there was no discrimination at all.
I am raising the matter tonight because I am sure that the Minister finds it rather hard to believe I am not grateful for what has been done. It is not that, but I am rather sceptical. I cannot make -lead or tail of what the Building Societies Association really means. After publicity had been given to its statement on 13th February, many more letters began to come in to me. I am glad to know that a lot of them also went to the Building Societies Association. I am very polite if I say that the letters do not agree with the statement made by the Building Societies Association. They regarded that statement with a considerable amount of cynicism while I regarded it with complete disbelief.
I want to ask the House to take note of two of the letters which people have sent to me. They are particularly important, because both of them start with the phrase, "Although I am not a member of your political party". They were both written after the statement made by the Building Societies Association. The first one says, after saying that she is not a member of my political party—I must hide any possible identification for her—that she wanted a mortgage and an independent survey had found the property perfectly satisfactory. She was the director of a company and had been with the firm for twenty-five years of which she had been a director for fourteen years, getting a four-figure salary.
Does the Minister feel that any member of the Building Societies Association would deny that the qualifications of this woman conform to the statement put out by the Association several days previously, that she had to be credit-worthy and had to be in a sound job? This woman tells me that there are a great

many men in her company earning considerably less than she, who were able to get any mortgages they wanted. She was told that she would have to get a male guarantor. I am glad to say that she has written to the Building Societies Association. I have not had a copy of the reply they sent to her, but I am sure that this is a very bona fide case.
The other woman who wrote to me after the announcement said that she was not a member of this political party. She was wanting to increase the size of a school for which a large property had become available. She tells me that through the mediation of a parent
… we were brought into touch with a building society and fresh negotiations were started. These were again almost complete when the society, seeing my signature, realised that it was dealing with women, and immediately demanded that we submit the names of four guarantors of whom they would choose three. For fear of losing the property altogether, we agreed, under protest.
Had the Building Society said that their business was to finance house purchase, not to extend activities of schools, I should have understood fully, but this was not the case. In fact the Society seemed not only willing but even eager to make the loan, as it was abundantly secured on our other properties. The only objection to the loan's going through in the normal way was that of our sex.
These two cases are indicative of the many substantial complaints I have received. In view of the cases which have been raised and those which have been to the Minister, I think he will understand that I cannot accept the statement of the Building Societies Association. Hon. Members on both sides of this House know that there has been discrimination over many years and there has been this demand for male guarantors. That is accepted, and the best way of treating it is to say is that it is quite out-of-date.
The reason I am raising this tonight is that I think it quite obvious that something of this public displeasure has begun to seep through to the Building Societies Association. Obviously, if it had not, we should not have got anywhere because they say this discrimination has not happened. It seems remarkably odd to have decided to stop doing something which they say has never been started. We had the statement made by the Minister, which I have quoted. On page 2 of the Bill the Clause goes on to say:
and where a society has been so designated and the designation has not been revoked"—


I ask the right hon. Gentleman what will happen if a society does not keep to this agreement which he mentioned to the House as reported in column 942 of the OFFICIAL REPORT? If a society signs this agreement which the Minister has referred to and then carries on as before, we are not going to be any better off. As the Minister told us that under this agreement there would be no sex discrimination, I want to know whether that means no sex discrimination according to the Minister's ideas or according to the ideas of the Building Societies Association. I flatter the Minister by saying that I hope there is a very wide difference between the two.
These are the only two points I want to raise with the right hon. Gentleman, because other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. I ask him whether the phrase "without distinction of sex" as used by him means that male guarantors will not be demanded where woman applicants for loans meet the creditworthiness terms of the Building Societies Association. The second point is, what will happen to a society which signs the agreement the Minister has mentioned and does not keep it? Will it continue to be designated as a society receiving loans from the Government, or will that be withdrawn? As this is public money, I hope the Minister will clear up those two points before the Bill leaves this House.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I should like to make just a few observations before the Bill receives its Third Reading. I do not propose to discuss building societies tonight. I have spoken on the subject of building societies from time to time in this House and have already expressed my views on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
I wish to refer for a few moments to 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. mortgages and the possible implications of lending up to 100 per cent. The Bill will facilitate the granting of mortgages by building societies up to 95 per cent. and by local authorities up to 100 per cent. This may help some home buyers to purchase houses who might otherwise have been prevented from doing so because of their inability to raise sufficient deposit.
I am in agreement with the general principle of assisting home buyers in that way, because I have always advocated the extension of home ownership. I am all in favour of any Measure which will help to bring about a wider ownership of property and I have always regretted the obstacles which have been in the way of those who wish to buy their houses, for example the high interest rates in recent years.
While I want to make the path of the home buyer easier, however, I am anxious that those who set out to buy a house, particularly young people who are not very well off, should not be led into buying a house at an inflated price or taking on a burden of mortgage which is more than they can bear. If there were any great extension of 100 per cent. mortgages I think that it would have the effect of inflating prices. There would, at any rate, be that danger.
Much depends, of course, upon the valuation, and it would be helpful if before the Bill reaches the Statute Book the Minister made it clear to the public that a 95 per cent. or 100 per cent. mortgage does not necessarily mean the advance of that percentage of the price asked by the vendor or even of the price agreed before valuation between the vendor and the purchaser. It means 95 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the valuation. It is most important that that should be made clear, because whether this be the greatest single Measure ever put on the Statute Book or not, I am sure that the Minister does not want house purchasers to be led astray into thinking that whatever price is agreed, they will get 100 per cent. of it from a local authority or 95 per cent. of it from a building society.
It is very imporant that there should be a valuation before the contract is signed, and it is also important that the valuation should be made with care. There is no doubt that building society valuations are made and will be made with care, and those who go to a building society and postpone the signing of a contract until a valuation has been made will probably not fall into trouble.
I should like to raise one or two queries on that Part of the Bill which deals with local authorities. In the case of sales to a tenant, I am not sure whether it is the normal custom for a tenant who buys from the local authority to have a


valuation. I think that it is a good idea in any case to have a valuation. I am, however, more concerned with those cases where the purchaser is not already a tenant of the local authority but is asking for a loan from the local authority. In that case there should he as much uniformity as possible in the valuations made prior to the granting of the loan.
One of my correspondents on this subject has written to me as follows:
Having discussed the Bill with councillors and officials of various local authorities, I gather that many councils, because they personally disapprove of 100 per cent. mortgages, will give special orders to their valuers to 'value down' the property concerned, so that in effect the mortgage to be granted will be only 90 per cent. of the value, as at present.
While I have my doubts about the advisability of lending up to 100 per cent., certainly on a large scale, it is desirable that there should be as much uniformity as possible throughout the country in valuing prior to sale where there is to be a substantial amount lent on mortgage. I should like to know whether the Minister has made any recommendations to the local authorities on the subject of valuations.
Finally, I think that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have somewhat overrated the value and importance of the Bill, but I hope that it will do some good. I think that it will be of help both to buyers of homes and to tenants whose houses are in need of improvement. I certainly support the Third Reading.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and I shall, in a moment or two, comment on one or two of the observations which he has made. Before I do that, I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on the great persistence with which she has supported the cause of women. I would say that her case—that is, a fair deal for women in the purchase of homes—would have the general support of all sections of the House.
The main principle of the Bill is that more money will be made available for those persons wishing to purchase homes of their own, and the second principle is the encouragement to make improvements

to these houses, and indeed to other houses as well. The underlying scheme is to encourage the purchase of older houses, and here I support the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, who, I think, was perfectly right to draw the attention of people who intend to buy these older houses to the fact that they must beware of defects which may well be glossed over. The old adage of caveat emptor holds good. Buyers must beware and be guided, not particularly by the price which is asked for the house but by the value which that house holds in the market. That is the important factor—the value of the house.
When during the Committee stage I recommended a universal upper limit of £3,000, it was not because I wanted these houses to be inflated in value to £3,000, but only because I wanted to have uniformity for the whole country in that lending could be made up to £3,000, irrespective of the district in which the house was situated.
I believe that these older houses, if they are bought at the right price—and here I think the valuers of the building societies and the local authorities will have a considerable responsibility—will have money lent on them as recommended by the valuers to these societies. I hope that these valuers will take a realistic view of the valuation of these older properties, so that people will not be misled into paying inflated prices for them. If that is the case, I think that the Bill will perform a very useful purpose, as I believe there are a considerable number of these older properties which will be available at sensible prices.
May I now comment on the improvement grants? As we know, hitherto these grants have been used mainly by owner occupiers, but I hope very much that this scheme will bring about a vast extension of their use. I would draw attention to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said on 18th February during the Committee stage:
The Government desire that the improvement grant system should operate much more extensively than hitherto for the benefit of rented houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 390.]
This is the alteration which has been brought in with this Measure. These grants will be available in respect of rented houses on a very wide scale, and this is a tremendous challenge to the landlords.
I hope they will accept the challenge. They are being given—and hon. and right hon. Members opposite made considerable play with this—very generous terms. I endorse that, but if they are generous terms, they are to encourage extensive improvements in these properties, and it will be the tenants who will benefit from the improvements. The tenants will be the people who will be using the wash-basins to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred, the baths, the hot water systems, the flush lavatories and the rest. They will be used by the tenants. Therefore, I support wholeheartedly this widespread encouragement which is being given to all sections of the property-owning community to make full use of these grants.
I wonder if my right hon. Friend, either from his own Department or in conjunction with the local authorities and the building societies, could issue an explanatory booklet. The provisions of the Bill would be very much better appreciated were they set out in relatively simple terms, and a booklet would greatly help Members of Parliament to advise constituents and building society clients to make use of the Bill's provisions to the fullest possible extent.
This Measure will cost the taxpayers and ratepayers a considerable amount of money, but I am sure that it will be useful, and that the money spent will prove a worth-while investment in family happiness.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: In moving the Third Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary made the very extravagant claim that this was the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership that any British Government had introduced. He was repeating, almost word for word, his right hon. Friend's claim when moving the Second Reading. On that occasion, however, the right hon. Gentleman left out the word "British", and thus seemed to claim that it was the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership that had ever been introduced by any Government. In that, of course, he was quite wrong. Since the end of the war the West German authorities have taken the obvious course of helping home ownership by reducing interest rates considerably.
The first part of the Bill is designed to pump into the building societies the capital they need to meet requests for loans by purchasers. It undoubtedly fulfils a need. Because money from investors has not been flowing in building societies have been obliged to turn away many applications, especially those for loans on older houses.
In that respect, the Bill is good—it provides public money to assist the building societies—but its application is rather late. Had the Government made this money available three years ago, a considerable fillip would have been given to home ownership. Present signs are that funds are flowing into the building societies at an increasing rate, so that they have less need of State money.
I turn now to the rates of interest charged by the Government to the building societies and by the building societies to prospective house purchasers. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). He has evidently studied this part of the Bill with great care, and made a valuable contribution to our debate. I regret that the Minister cannot in some way implement the ideals of the hon. Member for Halifax.
At present only those approved societies Which will charge the rate recommended by the Building Societies Association will be able to avail themselves of the scheme. Any building society which with public spiritedness and initiative decides that it can charge its borrowers less than the rate recommended by the Building Societies Association will not be able to take advantage of the scheme. At present the recommended rate is 6 per cent. Building societies charging 6 per cent. will be able to take Government money at 5½ per cent., use the scheme and develop their businesses.
The effect will be that the Government scheme will encourage the higher interest rate and will not encourage the lower interest rate. In effect, the Government are saying to those societies who maintain their rates at 6 per cent., "Here is State money for you to lose". It is conversely saying to those societies which have reduced the rates to their borrowers, "This scheme is no use to you, because you will not be able to work it".
It is a serious matter that the community should encourage building societies to keep their rates high. That


is what it will mean. Two of the largest building societies in the country, the Halifax and the Leicester societies, have reduced their rates to borrowers to 5½ per cent. Those societies are to be congratulated on their business acumen and concern for the borrower, who is heavily burdened by present rates of interest. The burden of interest is the main thing that hampers home ownership. We all know that at 6 per cent. a house costing £2,000 requires £4,000 in round figures. Two thousand pounds is the purchase price and £2,000 is the interest. The shocking thing about the scheme that the Government have worked out for building societies is that it will encourage the maintenance of high interest rates and will discourage the societies leading the way in the downward trend in interest rates in their public spirited policy.
That is a matter to which the Government have not paid adequate attention. It is extremely serious that the Treasury, through a scheme worked out with building societies, is fathering a policy which tends to keep up interest charges to borrowers. The borrower in every case is a man who had to work and strive to buy his own home and has to calculate his shillings and pounds in order to find his payment to the building society each month. When he realises that the scheme will encourage higher rates and discourage lower rates, he will perhaps think that this is not the greatest measure to promote home ownership that any Government has ever passed.
I should like to say a word or two on the second part of the Bill. I leave the Scottish part for those hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies. The second part of the Bill provides that Exchequer money shall go to those house owners who will agree to put certain standard amenities into their houses. It is an extremely generous scheme, as the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) mentioned. As much as £150 in public money will be handed to the owner of a house who undertakes to put in these standard amenities.
We approve of the purpose behind that part of the Bill, but all through the debates we have complained that the point of view of the community has not been properly considered by the Government. In the Bill there is a scheme to give very large money payments to landlords who improve their property, but insufficient attention has been paid to the

local authority and community interests in this respect. The community point of view as to fitness and overcrowding has been brushed aside, and we have had no response from the Minister to our attempts to safeguard the community interest.
The local authorities have been dealt with rather harshly by the Minister in his improvement grant scheme. As a result of his lack of adequate consultation with the local authorities, as we have seen in our debates, the details of the improvement arrangements have not been properly worked out. The Minister would have done well to have given the same amount of care and attention to consultation with the local authorities as he gave to consultation with the building societies. He would then have gained the approval and thanks of the local authorities, and the Bill would have been much more workmanlike.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) repeated the speech which I made in Committee on the question of interest, because I think the point is very important. I gather that, apart from that, his only objection to the Bill is that it ought to have been brought in earlier. Indeed, I have been looking for any real objection to the Bill from the Opposition during this debate and I have found none. The heavy sarcasm of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) convinced me that he had no case whatever against the Bill.
Indeed, the whole of our debates on the Bill have spotlighted the difference in the way in which each side of the House looks on the relationship between a man and the bricks and mortar in which he lives. I would not quarrel with any hon. Member opposite who tells me that private landlordism is unsatisfactory in many cases, but where private landlordism is unsatisfactory I understand that hon. Members opposite wish to work towards their maxim that an Englishman's home is his council's, whereas we on this side of the House want to work towards home ownership and owner-occupation.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman says that we on this side of the House do not believe in owner-


occupation. We do believe in owner-occupation. I should like to know whether he will be prepared to support us in achieving real owner-occupation and not this twisted system of leases.

Mr. Page: How the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) can rise to his feet and say that his party believes in owner-occupation, with his party's record against home ownership during their term of office, I do not know. I have great admiration for the hon. Gentleman's courage in saying that.
I was saying that we want to move towards owner-occupation, and it is absolutely necessary to give some assistance in that movement. The Bill will give that assistance. In recent years it has become evidence that without substantial resources and unless one was prepared to buy a modern house it was difficult to become a home owner.
Had that position been allowed to go on we might have reduced the country into three categories of house owners only—council tenants, tenants of rented old property and owner-occupiers of modern houses. That might have been the position if we had not introduced this Bill and provided assistance for those who wish to be owner-occupiers of the older type of house. By using the building societies with their immense organisation and experience, Part I of the Bill will have the effect of spreading owner-occupation and Part II of improving old houses.
I certainly admired the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering when he talked about his party favouring home ownership. But really when the party opposite were in office they did nothing whatever to favour it; they discouraged it all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, by the controls on private building. Even in 1951, only 22,000 houses were built for sale and now the annual figure is six times as many. Because of the availability of houses at the present time, this Bill was necessary in order to assist the purchase of houses.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is eight years since 1951.

Mr. Page: Indeed, even one year after 1951 the number was doubled and so it has gone on throughout the eight years. There are houses available for the would-be home owner now which were never

available even during the latter part of the term of office of the Labour Government.

Mr. Howell: The Government were always slow thinking, but eight years is a very long time.

Mr. Page: Eight years—and now annually there are six times as many houses available as when the Labour Government went out of office. This cannot be just brushed aside by the party opposite. There are these modern houses now available and newly-built houses for purchase. That means that there is a movement from the older houses. The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to enable those older houses to be improved and to enable purchasers to buy them.
Another good reason for the Bill, and a good purpose which will be served, was that the Rent Act removed the incentive to a tenant of higher-rated premises at an artificially low rent to remain in them at that rent. There have been movements of those tenants into houses of their own or the sitting tenants have purchased. There again the Bill will be of great assistance to them in purchasing their own houses.
One could mention a third reason and that is the drive by the Government for slum clearance. Many of those moving from slum clearance areas wish to buy their own houses and may not have the resources to put down the sort of deposit which was previously required. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, South-West is looking puzzled. I imagined that he would be looking puzzled. The Labour Government never thought of slum clearance and never even started it.

Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member keeps saying that people in slum houses will be thinking of buying their own houses. There are a good number of slums in my constituency. I am worried and puzzled because of what the hon. Member is saying. More and more people in those slums are going on short time every week and more and more are becoming unemployed. Therefore, their chances of buying their own houses are diminishing.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Islington, South-West knows that I know his constituency fairly well, just as I know the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. There are many people there moving from the


very much older houses in the slum clearance areas who wish to buy their own properties. I could name many in my own constituency who are in exactly the same position, people who wish to buy as they are moving from slum clearance areas. Such people will be assisted by the Bill in being able to borrow up to 95 per cent., or up to 100 per cent. if borrowing from the local authority.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of this? He and his hon. Friends are constantly reminding us that the Government, through the Minister of Housing and Local Government, are encouraging the clearance of slum dwellings. In my constituency of Bristol, South there has for many months been a campaign organised by a leading Tory alderman, supported by a Tory ex-councillor, through the creation of an organisation called, I think, the Tenants' Defence Organisation, opposing the local Labour-controlled council and designed to prevent it carrying through the instructions of the Minister. What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that? He and his hon.Friends say one thing here, but they do another thing in the constituencies.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr Wilkins) has made a very good Adjournment debate speech by means of an intervention. He will not expect me to reply on detailed matters in his constituency. I have no information about those details. All I can say is that he need only look at the figures of slum clearance during the last few years to realise that this Government are carrying out a slum clearance drive which was never contemplated by the Labour Government during their term of office and never even suggested by them. The drive is going ahead now and it will go ahead. This Bill is an extremely good preparation for the continuation of that drive when the next Conservative Government are in office after the coming General Election. The Bill will be of great assistance to those who wish to buy their own houses when they are moved from these areas.

Mr. Wilkins: That is no answer to the challenge.

Mr. Page: In regard to Part II also there is a sharp contrast between the failure of the Labour Government and the success of the Conservative Government,

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman for Kettering is not still here. During the course of our debates he has patted himself on the back for the 1949 Housing Act and has told us that his Government started the improvements grants. Started them? There were 10,000 in five yars. That is all.

Mr. D. Howell: We had a little war.

Mr. Page: This was in 1949. The war had been finished for three or four years. During the five years after the 1949 Housing Act, only 10,000 improvement grants were made. I admit that two of those years were under a Conservative Government. We did not have time to amend the Act. Undoubtedly, it was faulty in its provisions to encourage improvement grants, because when it was altered in 1954 by the Act of that year, there was a relaxation of the conditions, and there were then twenty times as many granted. Forty thousand grants a year are now being made. I forecast that, under this Bill, we shall have five times as many again.
What is needed is about 200,000 grants a year, and I believe that that number can he achieved under the terms of the Bill. There will be an automatic application by purchasers of older houses which have not the standard amenities. Automatically, as they purchase a house, they will apply to the local authority for grant. This is the connection between Part I of the Bill and Part II.

Mr. A. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman confusing standard grants with improvement grants?

Mr. Page: I am not confusing them at all. The standard grant is now, as it were, added to the improvement grant. This is not an excessive burden on local authorities, as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite. The grants are now costing approximately £7 million a year. If there were five times as many grants, that would mean a cost of £35 million. of which the Exchequer pays three-quarters and local authorities only one quarter. In addition, many local authorities will receive an increase in rate deficiency grant as a result.
I believe that the Bill will succeed in giving the family man what he wants—the ability to buy his own home and, if he proposes to buy an older type of house, to improve it and make it a decent home for himself and his family.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: We must congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on intervening in the debate, especially as the Whips on the Government Front Bench were doing their best to cut down contributions from the other side. I only hope that we shall have one or two more contributions from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member at least attempted to liven up the debate. I do not say that I agree with all that he said, but it was at least lively and interesting, which is more than can be said for some of the other contributions which we have had from hon. Members opposite.
Despite what the hon. Member said, I look back only a few years to 1951, the days when one could borrow money from the local authority at 3¼ per cent. to buy a house and when building societies were lending at 4¼ per cent. and 4¼ per cent. and when on the Tube one saw notices which read, "Why pay rent? Why not buy your own house?" Building societies at that time were willing to lend money and a very large number of people became owner-occupiers, a large number of them being sitting tenants who took advantage of facilities which were available through the building societies and local authorities to become owner-occupiers.
I hope that one day we shall return to the situation in which one can obtain money for house purchase at the reasonable rates of interest which were operating prior to the General Election of 1951. The biggest help that can be given to anyone who wants to become an owner-occupier, which is more important than a 90 per cent., 95 per cent., or even a 100 per cent. mortgage, is a reasonable rate of interest. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Bill which attempts to bring down the rate of interest to a more reasonable level.
On Part I, I am rather doubtful—and I will explain why—whether building societies will make a great deal of use of the facility of Government money which is offered to them under the Bill, Paragraph 2 of the outline of the scheme agreed with the Building Societies Association reads:
The Treasury will prescribe conditions with which Building Societies must comply as a pre-requisite of approval by the Chief

Registrar of Friendly Societies for the conferment of Trustee Status on their deposits".
As I see it, there is nothing to stop a building society which can comply with the regulations laid down by the Treasury applying for trustee status. Let us be honest about it. That is all building societies want, and that is what they are after in this piece of legislation. There does not appear to be any obligation on them, once they have obtained trustee status, to take part in the scheme for using Government money to give 95 per cent. mortgages.
The paragraph continues:
Societies so approved will be eligible to participate in the scheme.
It does not say that societies so approved will or must participate. They will be eligible if they want to participate. I am of the view that several societies will not want to participate. There is not a great deal of profit in this for them. A ½ per cent. difference in interest will cover their administrative charges with a little bit left over, and I doubt whether it will be worth their while carrying out the scheme.
I have a vague idea that the Minister probably feels the same, because there is provision for only £100 million, which represents about 75,000 houses. He might say that when that sum is used up further legislation could be introduced to provide another sum, but if he had thought that a great deal of money would be involved there was no reason why he should not have so provided in the first place. In his heart of hearts he probably believes that not much use will be made of these provisions. Once the building societies have achieved trustee status they will have a vast new area from which to borrow money and they will be satisfied with the money which they will then be able to obtain and which they will be able to lend on what they consider reasonable properties.
They will also be in direct competition with local authorities who, over the last few years, have largely depended on money obtained on mortgage from trustee savings banks, pension funds, and similar sources for their own building operations and for their operations under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Act, 1949. Those sources have provided money for their capital requirements, but the building societies


will now be competing with them for that money. I believe that once the building societies have that money not many of them will want to rush in to volunteer to assist the Minister in this great march forward which the Parliamentary Secretary described to us.
I described the Bill earlier as being a bribe to building societies by providing them with trustee status in return for their operating a scheme. However, on a more careful reading of the second paragraph of the agreed scheme, which I have just quoted, I have revised that opinion, since the building societies are to be given trustee status without an obligation to assist the Government with the scheme. Once they have trustee status money, they will have got what they want from this legislation and will not be very interested in its other aspects.
In dealing with Part II of the Bill, I want again to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby. I was extremely interested to hear him say that only 10,000 improvement grants were made between 1949 and 1951 and that the figure had risen to between 30,000 and 40,000 a year since that date under the provisions of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, the "Operation Rescue" about which we heard so much but which was admittedly a flop because the Rent Act had to be brought in in 1957 because of the failure of the 1954 Act. The 1954 Act seems to have been a flop, because in addition to improvement grants there are now to be standard grants to put right the mistake made in 1954.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member can hardly call a Measure a flop when it creates twenty times as many improvement grants per year as did the 1949 legislation.

Mr. Reynolds: But even the hon. Member was far from satisfied with the figures of the 1949–54 period. One has to make a comparison with the claims put forward at the time for "Operation Rescue." It was said that it would abolish slums, improve property, and everything else. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If the position between 1949–54 was an absolute failure, something twenty times as much a failure could not be a success.
The hon. Gentleman went on to give a very relevant figure, about which I should like more information. He said that he expected and hoped that there would be about 200,000 improvement grants a year. I presume that he was speaking about the total number of grants, standard grants as well as the ordinary grants. That is an interesting figure. If there are 200,000 grants a year, over a period of five years there will be one million grants of one kind or another. If we assume that 30,000 to 40,000 are grants under the ordinary improvement grant procedure and that 170,000 to 160,000 are improvements under the standard grants which we are now approving, and assuming that the average improvement grant will cost £150 of public money—and it will probably be higher than that—then tonight we are discussing handing over during the next five years a total of £150 million of public money, three-quarters of it taxpayers' money and one-quarter of it ratepayers' money. In other words, that is £150 million of public money which is to be used as a subsidy to the owners of property, tenant-occupied and owner-occupied houses.

Mr. Page: I was working on a figure of 40,000 grants in each year, and that gives a total of £7 million. I multiplied the 40,000 by 5 in order to get the 200,000 grants, and I arrived at a figure of £35 million and not £150 million as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes—E35 million a year. If my arithmetic is correct, £35 million multiplied by 5 gives more than £150 million, which I am taking for the five-year period. I think that I am being fairly conservative in saying it will be £150 million in five years. It will probably be rather more than that. This subsidy of £150 million of public money is being paid in respect of privately-owned property. I have no objection to subsidising the occupation of residential property. On the other hand, we must realise that if we are to pour as much public money as this into subsidising what the Minister hopes will be privately-owned tenanted property it strengthens the case for looking again at the ownership of that property. If we are to put public money into it why should we not get some public benefit from it?
This strengthens the case for municipalisation, which will be the best way of dealing with the problem. We have only had this 200,000 figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby. I wonder how many dwellings would rank for one of these standard improvement grants. If the Minister feels that my figure is incorrect I should be pleased if he would correct me now, or later. I would assume that about 6 million dwellings would be eligible for a standard improvement grant; in other words there are about 6 million dwellings which lack most of the amenities which are listed here and which can be provided by way of the standard amenity grant.
There are probably 7 million families entirely without, or having to share a bath, and a further 2 million entirely without, or sharing, a water closet. It would not therefore surprise me if 6 million were entirely without, or sharing, most of the amenities mentioned in the Bill, which can be provided by means of the standard improvement grant. Hon. Members opposite seem to disagree. If they have another figure to put forward I should be glad to hear it.

Mr. Page: I would guess that the figure would be 4½ million.

Mr. Reynolds: I am prepared to take that figure of 4½ million. If the Minister will confirm that figure I shall be prepared to accept it. Let us assume that it is 4½ million. How many of those 4½ million does the Minister hope will be given these modern facilities as a result of the Bill? I believe that the occupiers of these 4½ million houses have a right to the minimum amenities listed in the Bill, and it is up to the Minister to tell us how many he hopes will be provided with them. The Bill has been described as a magnificent effort tonight. On the day the Bill was considered in Committee the Manchester Guardian referred to it as the last chance of the landlords. It said that if the landlords did not take this opportunity the case for municipalisation would be proved. There is a great deal to be said for that remark.
The Minister thinks the Bill will be a success, but can he give us any idea of the number of grants there would have to be in five or ten years in order to prove that the Measure was a success? I do not think it will be physically possible

to make these improvements in all of these houses? But does he hope that landlords may take advantage of the provisions of the Bill to the extent of half—say, 2¼ million houses? Perhaps he thinks the figure will be 1 million. The Minister does not want to commit himself. Does he think that 250,000 will be improved? That would be about one-fifteenth of the total number of dwellings without these amenities. If he thinks that not even that number will be provided with improvements, Part II of the Bill will be a complete and utter flop.
I think that it will be. I do not think that many private landlords will be prepared to put their own private money into improving their properties. There might be an increase in the number of owner-occupiers who will take advantage of these facilities, but the Manchester Guardian was right when it suggested that this would be the last chance for the private landlords. I do not think that they will take that chance and then the case for municipal ownership of privately-owned rented dwellings will be proved conclusively.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) say that if landlords did not take advantage of Part II of the Bill the case for the municipalisation of houses would then be proved. I have been under the impression for the last two years that the party opposite were determined to bring about the municipalisation of houses whether the need, justification or benefit of it were proved or not.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. I said that the Manchester Guardian had stated that if landlords did not take advantage of Part II of the Bill that would disclose that they were not interested in improving their properties. I think that has been proved already.

Mr. Cole: Earlier the hon. Gentleman said he thought that the case for municipalisation might well have been proved. However, whether that be so or not, the hon. Gentleman made another remark about how much use the building societies would make of the facilities provided in Part I for lending


on and improving pre-1919 properties. I should like to offer one point for the hon. Gentleman's consideration. If he is right—and I must categorically deny that he is—why have building societies, without this financial assistance from the Government, been lending to a certain extent on this type of property up to now? Some of them have lent not inconsiderable sums. If they have been prepared to do that up to now, why are they not going to do it when funds are made available to them in addition to their own funds and funds which they get from trustee status? Why should they not do it now when additional funds are available?

Miss Herbison: The Minister gave the answer to that during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. He mentioned the Halifax Permanent Building Society and one or two other societies which were willing to lend on these older houses, but it was because others were unable to do so that the Government decided to do something about it.

Mr. Cole: That does not alter what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that he did not think that the societies would take it up. My right hon. Friend said during the Second Reading debate that, to a large extent, the building societies did not have the funds. Most hon. Members know of one society, if not more, which has had the funds and lent on this type of property.
I think we shall find that societies will he glad to make use of these funds, to the extent of £100 million, for the purpose of lending on these older houses. These older pre-1919 houses—I live in a house very much older than that—are part of our stock of houses in the country. We are a limited country in size and have a limited number of units of accommodation—I think that is the term used today—and it is not easily possible, whichever party is in power, to find all the land we want on which to build houses and flats and also to keep our agriculture going. Therefore, we must jealously guard those houses which we have today.
I believe that this quite clear and very fine effort to encourage building societies to lend money on pre-1919 houses is going to he of great help. We in this country cannot afford, if it could be

afforded anywhere, to cast aside our large stock of pre-1919 houses and only concentrate on those built subsequently. We must keep in mind those people who may have been living in such houses since they were built or later and find themselves with a "frozen asset", as it were. They cannot sell the house because would-be purchasers cannot raise a mortgage to buy, and so the owners have to remain in houses which may not now be adequate for their needs, or else let them he sold at some lesser figure. In many ways, which will demonstrate themselves over the years, my right hon. Friend has made a great contribution by means of this Bill to the creation of a property-owning democracy, something in which hon. Members on this side of the House passionately believe.
During the Committee stage discussions I referred to the inclusion of societies for trustee status and the size of the assets necessary for them to qualify. I wish to refer again to that subject and to recall that when a group of Amendments were being discussed during the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, in reply to remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), that
as the conditions will be laid down by regulation"—
that is conditions from the Treasury—
it will be possible to make amendments from time to time when we see how the Act works out.
These are the conditions for trustee status referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill. The Economic Secretary also said:
One of the conditions which could be amended if it became obviously right to do so would be the size qualification."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 4th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 454–5.]
I wish to remind my right hon. Friend of that and to express the hope that he will be able to keep this matter continually under review. It is something which has caused concern to many of the smaller societies.
In Clause I of the Bill it states:
Where the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies … is satisfied that a permanent building society fulfils such requirements as to its assets and liabilities, liquid funds, reserves, and other matters, as the Treasury may by regulations prescribe …


In other words, the size qualification is only one of the various criteria for consideration for trustee status. I am anxious about this matter. We may well find from experience that many societies are justified in every way for acquiring trustee status although they may not at present have assets amounting to £500,000.
My right hon. Friend has had to endure a certain amount of good humoured derision from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). But I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any cause to be ashamed of a Measure which will enable many people to be provided with a kitchen sink and a supply of hot water. I consider it a cause for adulation that, with all his other responsibilities, my right hon. Friend has found time to put that into effect.

Mr. Reynolds: We were told during earlier discussions on this Bill that it was impossible to insist on a hot water supply being provided for the kitchen sink because the kitchen sink could not be defined legally, and the provision is in the Bill only because of pressure from hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Cole: The hon. Gentleman does me too much credit. I was not referring to that matter but to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering who referred to putting the kitchen sink into a Statute.
The amenities which will be provided by this Bill will mean a lot to human welfare and to the happiness of the people who will benefit from them. I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts and I wish the Bill a speedy passage in another place.

10.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: We are all grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for the efforts she has made to safeguard the position of women under the provisions of this Bill. Women everywhere will be grateful to her for the work she has done.
I want also to put on record how much I appreciate the stand which has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the statement he has made of his own views in relation to the position of women.

He has stated quite categorically that he believes in equality for women under the Bill. Women will be very grateful for that statement. The only difficulty which has arisen is that it does not appear to have been possible to include in the Bill the necessary safeguards in words so that in future there shall be no misunderstanding about the intentions regarding participation of women in these matters.
I want to put on record two ideas of my own about how, if there are difficulties with building societies, we might be able to protect the interests of women. If I remember correctly, my right hon. Friend said at one point that the Building Societies Association had signed an agreement on this matter. It should be possible to have on the record in HANSARD the names of those societies. If in future any woman is unfairly treated by a building society it should be possible for any hon. Member—on either side of the House—to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule eliminating such a society from a grant made by my right hon. Friend. It would be quite a good thing to have that on the record so that building societies, which I am sure will read this debate with very great interest and care, will be aware of the view of the Government and my right hon. Friend and that in future they can look for trouble if they do not implement the provisions the Minister quite honourably and honestly expects them to carry out.
I am not quite so tolerant as my right hon. Friend. I do not always believe that everyone will behave perfectly in this rather imperfect world. I prefer to have safeguards inserted in the Bill. It seems that we could look for a safeguard in this direction. I only trust that we shall not have to resort to such methods to ensure that women are treated equally with men under the provisions of the Bill.
The other day my right hon. Friend announced that he was going to write to local authorities giving them a directive or guidance—I am not certain which—that there should be no sex discrimination. In future there might be a time when we could ask whether there has been any discrimination on the part of local authorities. In relation to the treatment of women by local authorities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not in the Bill. It all seems to be a matter of administration.

Dame Irene Ward: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair when the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South made a speech covering the position of women under the Bill. It seems a little unfortunate that I, too, am not allowed to comment on it.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), but I am hearing the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). That is all that concerns me. I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth has made the point quite well. She must not discuss matters of administration, which have nothing to do with the Bill on Third Reading.

Dame Irene Ward: I can only say that I consider it a little unfortunate. I heard the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South make a full statement of the position of women under the Bill. I thought that it was very odd, because there is no safeguard in the Bill for women. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having drawn my attention to the matter.
I hope that I shall not have to ask my right hon. Friend to take disciplinary action against local authorities for not carrying out the undertaking which has been required by my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given certain undertakings and has made his own position clear, because it is only fair that women should participate as well as men in the provisions of the Bill, which the Government have introduced with a view to assisting home ownership in this country.

10.52 p.m.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friends and I regret the illness of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Joint Under-Secretary of State and we hope that they will very soon be fully recovered. I am sure that the Minister will convey that message.
The Parliamentary Secretary claimed that this was the greatest single Measure to promote home ownership, and both the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) claimed that it was a great Bill which encouraged home ownership. Which houses does the Bill help people to buy? They must be at least forty

years old—pre-1919. When these houses are bought they will be bought from their present owners. How many more people in Britain will become home owners, then, as a result of the Bill? I hope that after the great claims which he made on Second Reading, and what I regard as the extravagant claim made by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister will be able to tell us how many more people he expects to become home owners as a result of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that he could find no objection which my hon. Friends had to the Bill. Our greatest objection to it is that it will do very little to improve the houses in Britain. The hon. Member for Crosby tried to compare what had been done under a Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 with what had been done under a Conservative Government from 1951 to 1958. I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear my comments. I remind him of a fact which he has perhaps forgotten—that there was a war from 1939 to 1945 in which we suffered a great deal of bomb damage.
Even if we forget all that, the true comparison is not what happened between 1945 and 1951 and what happened between 1951 and 1958, but what happened between 1945 and 1951 in Britain and what happened in any other country in Western Europe. Looking at that comparison, one finds that in housing we did better than any country in Western Europe that our building resources were employed to the full during that period; and indeed, we were top of the league in house and factory building and keeping down the cost of living. The hon. Member for Crosby would have something to crow about if he could say that his Government, during those years, had remained at the top of the league rather than dropped our country to the miserable position of almost bottom of the league in almost all these fields.

Mr. Temple: The hon. Lady has been giving some interesting figures about Europe. Could she give us the improvement in house-building in Europe between 1951 and 1953? She will recollect that there was a considerable improvement at that time in England. Was the same improvement maintained in Europe during those two years?

Miss Herbison: I am not considering two years. This Government have been in power from 1951 and this is 1959. One has to compare the whole of their record with our record, and one finds that their record is not a great deal to crow about.

Dame Irene Ward: The electors decided otherwise in 1955.

Miss Herbison: We are waiting until the next election, when I imagine the hon. Lady will find that the electors have changed considerably since that time.
I am glad that throughout this Bill my hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Elaine Burton) has fought for equality for women. She said that she would have liked safeguards in the Bill. An opportunity was given on the Committee stage for these to be put in, but I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth voted against those safeguards going in. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give my hon. Friend the guarantees for which she asked in her excellent speech.
I want to turn to Parts II and III of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Solicitor-General, really feel that Parts II and III will lead to a great improvement in housing in the United Kingdom? This Government have tried by various measures to get landlords to improve our existing pool of houses. Almost bribe after bribe has been offered to the landlords, and to date these bribes have failed. Do the Government feel that this further generous bribe will lead to the improvement that we all feel is desperately needed for our houses?
The Government have decided that local authorities must give grants, with certain safeguards. We tried to move Amendments today, but we discovered that this Bill insists on local authorities giving grants to owners of houses which may have sanitary defects and that, by using the grant, may bring about overcrowding. It even allows for grants for owners' houses which are something less than fit for human habitation. The Government talk about freedom. They have made great play about the freedom which Conservatism brings, but where the local authorities are concerned the Government seem to think that Whitehall knows best.
In Clause 12 in Part II of the Bill, a Clause affecting England and Wales, there is the provision that the local authority shall decide what the rent should be if an improvement grant is given to the owner of the house the rent of which is decontrolled. We welcome that provision. We think it is an important provision, if public money, whether from the ratepayer or from the taxpayer, is to go to a landlord to improve the house, that the landlord should not, when the house is decontrolled, be able to ask an exorbitant rent from the tenant.
We tried in Committee and on Report to get a similar provision for Scotland. We do not know what were the reasons why our Amendments at both stages were not called. I say to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that I hope he will tell the Secretary of State that, although we have not been able to express what we feel on this matter, we do welcome the provision in Clause 12, that we think it is a very great safeguard to the tenant of a decontrolled house, and that, knowing the landlords in Scotland, we feel that it is of just as great importance, perhaps of greater importance, that we should have that provision in Part III of the Bill, too. We ask that the Secretary of State, when the Bill goes to another place, will make certain that such a provision is put into Part III.
On Second Reading I said that we would not vote against the Bill. Anything which helps even in the slightest to improve our housing we on this side welcome. We have tried to improve this Bill. Very few of our Amendments have been accepted. All through, whenever the Government have rejected our Amendments, they have done so because of their tenderness for the landlords. The Amendments which we proposed were Amendments to improve the position of the tenants, and time after time those Amendments have been rejected.
What one of my hon. Friends said I also want to say, that we have an alternative policy. We believe in owner-occupation. Our 1949 Act was the very first in the history of this country to help those who did own a little house to get the improvements for it. When we were the Government interest rates were much lower for those who wanted to own their own houses. We have said very clearly in our policy statement that we


shall revert to special rates of interest for home ownership.
I say finally to the Minister that this Bill may do a little, but it seems to us on this side of the House that it will not overcome the many evils which still exist in our housing in Britain. The Manchester Guardian was absolutely right. If the measures proposed in this Bill fail, the only alternative is the alternative proposed by the Labour Party. From all our previous experience we are convinced that the measures that are proposed in the Bill will fail. To the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, I would say that I am certain that before it has had much chance to operate there will be a Labour Government ready to bring in a Bill that will ensure for our people in Scotland, England and Wales really good conditions to provide the kind of home that is so important for Family life.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am obliged to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) for the kind words she said about the illness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can assure her that it is through no fault of mine that two English Ministers are speaking on the Third Reading of this Bill. Had it not been that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary were prevented by illness from being here, I can assure the House there would have been at least one Front Bench speech from a Scottish Minister.
Three months have passed since the Bill was debated on Second Reading and I am certainly not going to delay for more than a few minutes its progress to another place, because, whatever the Opposition may say, I have no doubt that the provisions in the Bill are being waited for eagerly by tens of thousands of people. That applies to each of the three Parts of the Bill.
Before the House gives the Bill a Third Reading I should like to reply to points that have been raised in debate, have sat through this two-hour debate and have endeavoured to follow it. I was not quite sure whether I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) who, in a series of diminishing figures, reminded me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
On another point, I realise that I have got to be very careful, with ladies in front of me and ladies behind me, not to put a foot wrong in the matter of sex discrimination.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for his suggestion that the Government might publish an explanatory booklet. Nothing of that kind could be done until the Bill becomes law, but I think that practice has been followed by Governments of different political colours in the past because it is to the common interest of all of us when new facilities have been enacted that we should take steps to make them as widely known as possible. Without doubt, I shall be sending a circular to local authorities when the Bill becomes law, drawing their attention to its provisions, and no doubt making certain suggestions for their guidance so far as they may need it.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield. West (Mr. Wade) spoke of the danger of people buying at inflated prices. He asked whether I would take cognizance of the stories he had heard that local authorities would give orders to valuers to value down properties where there was a question of making a 100 per cent. advance. I must point out that there is no obligation on any local authority under this Bill to make a 100 per cent. advance, so there is no need for a local authority to be as subtle as that. All it need say is that it is not going to make an advance of more than X per cent. of the valuation. I have never made any secret of the fact that I do not expect there will be a great many cases in which local authorities will make 100 per cent. advances.
It certainly seemed to the Government—and I am glad that it has generally commended itself to the House—that local authorities should have that power, because there was no reason in logic why they should continue to be restricted to 90 per cent. when building societies were free, by law, to go to 100 per cent., and were certainly willing to go to 95 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman was fearful lest people should be induced to buy houses at inflated prices by the offer of 95 per cent. from a building society. He may like to be reminded of the terms of the


agreement which was reached with the Building Societies Association, as set out in the White Paper published in cannection with the Bill. That stated that the advance, if the borrower so wishes, is to be 95 per cent. of the purchase price or valuation, whichever is the less, which means that the building societies themselves are well aware of the risks that might be run if we took the purchase price without imposing any check on it. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that a building society is under a statutory obligation to have a valuation made before making any advance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) spoke, quite rightly, of the value which building societies set on the grant of trustee status, and asked me to keep all the detail of these provisions under review. That assurance I can certainly give him. The House itself is safeguarded, because my hon. Friend will recollect that in Clause 2 (4) a limit of £100 million is set to the advances that can be made to the building societies under the Bill. That sum will be guaranteed, and when it is exhausted it will be necessary for the Government, if it is desired that the scheme should be carried on, to come back to Parliament and submit to further debate in this House.
I come now to the two hon. Ladies who have taken such a keen interest in the matter of sex discrimination. The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) referred to the phrase "other matters," which appears at the foot of page 1 of the Bill. The Bill there deals primarily with the conditions for trustee status. At some moments, the hon. Lady seemed to regard me as being virtually responsible for the Building Societies Association. I am no more responsible to the House for the Association than she is for, let us say, the Coventry City Council. Indeed, she may be more responsible for that Council's doings than I am for the Association's. As I informed the House, the Association has itself suggested that the agreement which building societies wishing to enter into the scheme will have to sign should include an undertaking that they will make loans without distinction of sex.
Both hon. Members have asked how this provision would operate and be enforced.

I can answer quite simply. Each society will be required to sign an agreement and, as at present proposed, such agreement will be terminable at three months' notice by either the Minister or the society concerned. In England, the Minister will be myself, and, in Scotland, he will be the Secretary of State. If, therefore, in the opinion of the responsible Minister, a society were to break the agreement, whether by discriminating against women or in any other way, the Minister would give notice to terminate the agreement for the future. I hope that that is a complete answer to that point.
In passing, I should say that if an agreement is terminated, that does not mean that existing mortgagors under the scheme in connection with the agreement would be sacrificed. Their position would be safeguarded by the continuance of the agreement in respect of the existing mortgages.

Miss Burton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance. Can he make it clear whether he included in those terms of sex discrimination this aggravating nuisance of the male guarantor, which is what irritates the women?

Mr. Brooke: I think that that is so. I do not think that I can use any fresh words on the spur of the moment. I have already told the House that there will be a provision that the society will make loans without distinction of sex. That means that while every society must naturally consider the credit worthiness of every borrower, whether man or woman, in no case can there be any question of some discriminating provision, whether the seeking of a male guarantor or anything else, simply because the applicant is a woman.

Miss Burton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.

Mr. Brooke: That is the point at issue. Naturally, there may be certain applicants, whether men or women, who, because of their position, have not the same credit worthiness of normal applicants, and in such cases it is perfectly natural that the society should seek some further guarantee that the obligations will be met.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, seeking at that moment to minimise the importance of the Bill and


its value to would-be house purchasers, said that it would assist only those purchasers of houses which were forty years old or more. That is not the case, as has been repeatedly explained by the Government. The building societies participating in the scheme are accepting obligations not only in respect of houses built before 1919, but in respect of houses built between the wars, that, so far as their funds allow, they will make advances on similar terms up to 95 per cent.
There is no doubt whatever that the provisions of the Bill will directly or indirectly loosen the facilities for the purchase of almost every type of house. Of course, it will be the people who wish to buy houses below certain limits of value and more than forty years old who will be sure henceforth that, if they are credit worthy and the house is sound, they will be able to get an advance, whereas for a number of years it has been the experience of many people seeking loans from building societies and being thoroughly credit worthy that they have met with a refusal, a most maddening refusal to them, but a refusal which the building society has had to give simply and solely because it did not have the funds to meet all the demands made upon it.

Miss Herbison: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how many extra people will become house owners as a result of the Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea?

Mr. Brooke: Any figure would simply be a guess and no sounder than the answer which the hon. Lady might make if I were to ask her how many Labour Members were likely to lose their seats at the next election.

Miss Herbison: That is as I suspected. Since the right hon. Gentleman has no information and cannot make even a guess, why does he make all his wonderful claims for the Bill?

Mr. Brooke: I could make any number of guesses, but when I am speaking on the Third Reading I do not think it is for me to indicate any figure unless I am sure that I can stand by it. So much depends on the conditions in the country, and whether we have a Government who creates conditions of confidence. There is no doubt whatever from indications

which have reached me and many other hon. Members by now that there are many people who, as I said before, are waiting for the Bill to reach the Statute Book, because they realise its attractions and the new opportunities it will give them.
But no one can prophesy and say exactly what number that will be, and that is exactly the same with standard grants and improvement grants. I have no doubt that when the Labour Government put the 1949 Act on the Statute Book and first made provision for improvement grants, high hopes were held in the minds of the sponsors. Those hopes were frustrated and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, in five years fewer than 10,000 improvement and conversion grants were made. The scheme failed because it was too restrictive, and I have borne that fact in mind when the Opposition have asked the Government to accept Amendments which would have imposed new restrictions in addition to the other conditions for the making of these grants.
In 1954 we introduced new legislation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was responsible at that time. At once the number of improvement and conversion grants leapt up, and then levelled out at about 35,000 a year. This was far better than the 1949–54 figure, but it was still not good enough, and the Government feel confident, because of all these things, that the new provisions of the Bill will lead to a rapid expansion of that number of 35,000.

Mr. Mitchison: Was not the 1954 Act the one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) called a mouldy old turnip for the landlords? Is this a better turnip?

Mr. Brooke: If the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to argue that the 1949 Act was as successful as the 1954 Act in getting houses improved he will argue almost anything. What I am quite prepared to say is that this Measure will have a greater effect than either of those Measures in further stimulating the improvement of houses for the benefit not only of their landlords but their tenants. Whether it will do enough and go far enough, who can say, at this stage? It was the experience between 1945 and 1951 that all the housing efforts of the


present Opposition failed. Since 1951 a successful housing policy has been continuously unfolded by the Government. We have now reached a point, with house building and slum clearance, at which we can take a further stride forward towards both house improvement and home ownership. Both of those desires are eagerly held by many of our fellow citizens in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is to satisfy those desires that we ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COURTS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations as to the payment of improvement grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, and as to the payment of grants and contributions under certain other enactments, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided in payment of improvement grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, and of grants or contributions under any of the following

enactments as amended by any subsequent enactment, that is to say—

(a) section sixteen of the Agriculture Act, Act, 1937;
(b) section fifteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940;
(c) section three of the Pests Act, 1954.—[Mr. Godber.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Her Majesty's Government have great powers under the Distribution of Industry Act and otherwise for the distribution of industry in Britain. I am concerned with the share that Scotland gets of it. The Government are responsible for the unfair distribution of industry and employment throughout Britain. They are, therefore, responsible for the unfair concentration of industry and employment in the South and Midlands of this island to the prejudice of North-East Scotland where trade, industry and employment are very badly needed.
In North-East Scotland the rate of unemployment is more than three times that in London and South-East England. In North-East Scotland it is 5·4 per cent. as against 1·7 per cent in London and the South-East. In my submission, Her Majesty's Government are not fully using the statutory powers which they have, and, as a consequence, the nation and the workers are suffering.
I want to present a reasoned case showing why Her Majesty's Government should alter this very injurious policy under which Scotland has suffered ever since they came to power. The high rate of unemployment which afflicts Scotland today is an offence to the individual. It is an avoidable loss to the nation and a mark of the grievous failure of the Government to govern properly.
Every able citizen has, in my submission, a right to do productive work, to eat, live, raise a family and feed them and to make his contribution to his own


wealth and that of the nation in a free society. For him to be forcibly deprived of these rights without fault of his own by being dismissed from the work in which he has invested his life is an obvious and elementary injustice. That is the position in Scotland today.
I am not alone in holding this opinion as is evidenced by the expressions of distinguished thinkers and distinguished newspapers. That independent newspaper, the Observer, only last Sunday pointed out that this is a social and industrial problem of a broad nature. I will quote one sentence from its article. It said:
Whether the firms in the industry do not lave a collective responsibility to compensate the older people, at any rate, who have invested a large part of their lives in a particular form of work is a major consideration.
In my submission, it goes further and extends to all workers, apprenticed or trained, in any technique who, at a loss to themselves and the nation by enforced unemployment, are denied the opportunity of using their skills.
The Aberdeen Press and Journal, a distinguished newspaper in my constituency, stated in a leading article on 5th March, on the subject of the injury inflicted on school-leavers who find themslves unable to get work:
There has recently been a considerable amount of uneasiness about the prospects of youngsters leaving school … There can be no relaxing of the special efforts being made in certain regions in Scotland. The work of the conference (on unemployment) to be called in Aberdeen is as important as ever.
In my submission, it is the duty of any Government to rectify these disparities between the various citizens, but this Government have not done so. The total number of persons registered as unemployed on 12th January of this year was, for Britain as a whole. 620,786; in Scotland as a whole, 116,510 and in Aberdeen, 4,939. That is the largest figure reached in Aberdeen for many years.
These figures contrast with the figures under the Labour Government of 1945–50 when Britain had full employment for the first time in history, full productivity, and records in exports and in the import of foreign currency wherewith to buy foreign commodities. Today Scotland is at a terrible disadvantage compared with the rest of Britain. The percentage of unemployment is higher in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain

as is shown by the figures which I have already quoted.
Why is this? The answer lies in bad administration in relation to Scotland by the relevant Ministers since this Government came to power. The Ministers I particularise are those at the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and National Service which have neglected Scottish interests.
In 1945–50 the administration of the Scottish Office was optimistic, constructive and practical, and it developed Scottish industry and employment with success and prosperity. Since 1951 until now the administration of the Scottish Office, as I shall show, has been pessimistic, non possumus and impracticable. Industry has been allowed to slacken and unemployment grows. Only the other day the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, indicted the Tory Government and made clear the argument I am adducing. In a speech in Glasgow he said:
The talk of enticing manufacturers to the Highlands"—
and we are always trying to get manufacturers and industry to the Highlands and increase employment there—
so far as consumer goods are concerned, is just eyewash … Great play has been made of the benefits which would accrue from the application of the Distribution of Industry Act, but to put it brutally, very little had happened and the Act had never really been put into force.
In my submission, this is the fault of the present Government. That right hon. Member went on pessimistically to point out other difficulties confronting Scottish trade, industry and employment such as Scotland's geographical position far to the north, away from the large consuming centres of the South and with the lack of a flat rate for transport.
This House knows that for years I have tried to induce the Scottish Office to take steps to introduce a flat rate of transport charges for commodities from Northern Scotland. I have put it to successive Secretaries of State and other Ministers of 'this Government, but always they have put difficulties in the way and the difficulties frighten them. Industries have not been fostered sufficiently, trade has languished, no flat rate has been granted, and today we see, as yesterday


and the day before, unemployment increasing in North-East Scotland. It is the same today and always has been under this Government who discriminate against Scotland because their hearts and their investments are in the South instead of in Scotland.
Contrast this with Northern Ireland where success is being achieved though the geographical position there is worse than in Scotland. Distances from the large consuming centres in England are longer, freight charges as a consequence are expensive and unemployment is greater, yet Northern Ireland is successful in attracting British, American and Canadian industries by the positive policy of its local Parliament, which is to make grants to build factories, to let them cheaply at a mere fraction of London rents, to buy machinery and assist research, to buy fuel and to build special roads, power stations and workers' houses. Is not this a striking example to the three Ministries I have indicated to do something of the same for Scotland, if they really mean it?
I shall crystallise the questions I ask the Ministers to deal with. First, have Her Majesty's Government any plans on the Northern Ireland lines for North-East Scotland in general and Aberdeen in particular? Second, what are the plans of Her Majesty's Government for Aberdeen (a) to build advance factories and (b) to extend existing factories? Third, do Her Majesty's Government intend to reduce unemployment in North-East Scotland in general and Aberdeen in particular? If so, how are they attracting new industries there, and will they offer lower factory rents in order to attract them?
Fourth, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to use their great powers for industrial development? Is it by preventing the building of additional factories in congested areas like London and the Midlands? Is it by encouraging industries to go to Aberdeen and North-East Scotland? Does the Minister realise that no factory or extension exceeding 5,000 square feet can be built without an Industrial Development Certificate from the Board of Trade? Does the Minister realise that Aberdeen offers great advantages of water power, electric power, clean air, plenty of open space and available labour?
Fifth, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to provide a flat rate for the transport of goods? Sixth, what steps do Her Majesty's Government propose in order to give the workers security of tenure in work and compensation for dismissal without fault on their part?
It is right that I should mention that before I rose to make this speech, I gave that set of questions to the Minister so that he could consider them and give a satisfactory reply. I hope that the Minister will give constructive answers to these questions to prevent the creeping mould of unemployment tarnishing the glittering glory of Aberdeen, the silver city by the sea.

11.39 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I listened to every word spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and I did not hear any suggestion of a constructive nature to tackle the problems of Aberdeen today. Indeed, when one looks at the record of the Labour Government and remembers the 2 million unemployed in 1947 and recalls that the Labour Government said over and over again that had it not been for America there would have been millions on the dole, one is not encouraged by the prospect of a future Labour Government. I am convinced that there would be a flight of capital from this country just because of the vague ideas on the ownership of industry held by the Labour Party.
We know perfectly well that the cause of our trouble can perhaps be summarised in two ways. First, our troubles are a result of the ending of a post-war boom and a demand for goods at any price and of any quality. This affects countries all over the Western world. Secondly, they are in part a result of the Government's policies of credit squeeze which were adopted for a deliberate purpose in order to tackle the problem of inflation which we all knew perfectly well had to be tackled if we were not to price ourselves out of world markets.
We talk, naturally, with anxiety of how we are to bring industry to areas far away from London, but we do not ask what are the markets for those industries. A great deal has been done in Scotland by the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry, by local chambers of commerce and by the Board of Trade,


but the fact remains that in a country which at present does not adopt either direction of labour or direction of industry, it is a question of partnership between Government, management and those who work within industry.
I therefore ask the Government whether they will say tonight that they will consider whether it is feasible or practicable to adopt for a short period a subsidy on the lines of that granted by the Northern Ireland Parliament for a specific period of unemployment. I ask not that the economy should be distorted to the detriment of existing industry but that we should consider granting a subsidy for short periods to the extent adopted in Northern Ireland, which has a sea passage and has 10 per cent. unemployment.
Secondly, I ask what has been done to stimulate the work already being undertaken by local authorities in the clearance of sites and construction on sites for future house building. I am certain that the March unemployment figures in Scotland will show that the seasonal problem, particularly in the building industry, has greatly improved. I remember making speeches long ago, back in the early days of the 1945 Parliament, saying that a time of difficulty was the time to stimulate public works and similar building and a time of boom was the time to take a rein on the economy in order to hold inflation.
In the present period of difficulty it is of the utmost importance that we should not distort the economy of Scotland to such an extent that it is not able in steadier times to continue the steady growth which we all desire. I am certain that in the April Budget we shall see the relaxation of those credit restrictions which have been unpopular with all of us but which were necessary at the time. I am certain that with that stimulation of the economy we shall see a steady growth of employment in Scotland throughout the summer.

11 44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am sure that we all regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who has influenza and who otherwise. I am sure, would have been here tonight, possibly answering the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for the eloquent way in which he has advanced the claims of the silver city. At Question Time week after week he assiduously probes for more and more information on this important subject and he is therefore in possession of most of the facts about the industrial situation in the Aberdeen and Buckie-Peterhead areas. I have very little new to say, because all these things have been revealed to him week after week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, in answer to his Questions.
I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis of the situation overall in Scotland, and in particular in North-East Scotland. The figures undoubtedly show that this is one of the areas where, throughout the period since the war, the level of unemployment has remained too high. I assure him that we are by no means complacent about these figures. It is true that even in recent times they have worsened, and, as he said, in Aberdeen the latest figure is 5 per cent., while in other parts of North-East Scotland it is much more serious.
This is obviously a situation which no one likes, and which any Government would do their best to try to solve. But it is a travesty for the hon. and learned Gentleman to try to hold this or any other Government responsible for the vast growth of the London conurbation, as opposed to the movement of population in Scotland. This has been going on for a long time, and has baffled successive Governments. It is true that we have had our power over the granting of industrial development certificates, and we are applying this power wherever possible in as tough a way as possible, to try to winkle out firms from the congested areas such as London and the Midlands, and persuade them to go to these areas of high and persistent unemployment, such as his constituency.
However, we must bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said, that production is not the only answer. Markets are equally important, and it is no good producing goods which cannot be sold. Therefore, we must pay some notice to the efficient operating of a firm, and this policy of the granting or non-granting of an I.D.C. must be flexible.


Wherever we can, if it is a new project, we refuse a certificate in London, but we are bound to grant applications for certain projects in these congested areas—for instance, for the service industries to be found there, or sometimes because these are merely extensions of existing plant. It would be harmful to the efficiency of a partciular firm if we tried to truncate a part of it which depends on the whole firm—just as if we were to cut off a man's arm from the rest of his body. But if we can steer rather than direct a firm to one of these areas, particularly to the hon. and learned Gentleman's area, we try to do so.
On this side of the House, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman said in his eloquence, we all regard unemployment as a great human tragedy, and we all wish to see people being enabled to use their talents in the service of their fellow men. I was brought up in the North of England, and well remember the mass unemployment of the 19291930 period. No one wants to see a return to that, and no one really believes that that is likely to be the case, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should give us some credit for the measures we have taken to try to deal with the situation. Successive Conservative Governments have shown their concern in this matter. It is on record that we are the only Government who have passed any Acts of Parliament dealing with the location of industry—in the 'thirties, in 1945, and again in 1958. These are all Conservative Measures.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Nonsense.

Mr. Rodgers: This is a matter of historical fact, and although this is not the place for me to go into historical facts, I would say that there will doubtless be an occasion not far distant when we can debate whether these Measures were introduced by Conservative Administrations or not. They certainly were, but I will leave that for the moment.
I will give figures. A White Paper was produced in 1944 by the National Government.

Mr. Fraser: The National Government. yes.

Mr. Rodgers: But the Act was passed by the Caretaker Government in 1945

before the Labour Government came into office. We passed in 1958 the Distribution of Industry Act which was specially designed to give help to areas such as those not covered by the 1945 Act and places where there was urgent need for new industry. Under this new Act projects which can bring employment to places where the level of unemployment is high and persistent are eligible, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, for assistance by the Treasury. The Treasury has a committee of independent business men and one trade unionist, I think, and an accountant to advise whether a project is likely to provide employment and will be viable after the assistance has been withdrawn.
All the areas of which we have been talking tonight are among those considered in this context which are in need of new employment. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman—I am sure he knows this—that it is the constant effort of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of my colleagues and myself at the Board of Trade to attract new industries to these areas.
So far we have been disappointed at the number of applications received by the Committee for assistance under the Act, but there are indications that the new expansionist climate in the country is encouraging more firms to revise their plans at the moment and to consider setting up manufacturing in places such as the North-East of Scotland and other parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are in need of diversified industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Northern Ireland and referred to the success they have already had there. Nevertheless, their unemployment rate is far higher than Scotland's—between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. I was over there the other day. I am full of admiration for what they have done, particularly in view of the great difficulties of transport, but they have by no means solved their unemployment problem despite the steps which they have taken to overcome their difficulties.
I hope that the one firm in the area for which a loan has already been recommended by D.A.T.A.C. will be followed by many more, to bring the new employment which is needed in the area. Four


more applications for D.A.F.A.C. assistance are under consideration at this very moment.
As well as the 1958 Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, the Development Commission has powers to build factories in rural areas in certain parts of Scotland and Wales, and they are being used to help the Buckie and Peterhead area where unemployment is particularly serious. Since 1947 finance has been provided through the Development Fund for three new projects two of which have already had extensions and the third is now also being extended to provide employment for 694 people and to cover 133,000 sq. ft. Industrial Development Certificates have been granted for 14 projects in this area and 28 in the Aberdeen area which alone should provide employment for 1,236 and 400 people respectively. These figures are for the last five years. I was going to catalogue the various new industries which have been introduced into these two areas of Aberdeen and Buckie-Peterhead but I shall not do that now.
There is no easy solution to the unemployment problem of the area. It is perfectly true that many firms consider that this area is remote and that they feel they would benefit more by being nearer to their markets. We do our best to correct this attitude. I appreciate very much what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the water power and hydro-electric power, the clean air, and the availability of open spaces, which are an attraction. I am immensely encouraged myself that in a town as far north as Fraserburgh an engineering firm is established which maintains a labour force of over 1,000. Equally, in Peterhead there are two American firms which are prospering and expanding at this

moment. All these firms are used as evidence by the regional controller and by the rest of us to persuade other firms to follow their good example.
To answer some of the questions would be wide of my responsibilities and not possible on this Adjournment debate. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the whole question of transport rates, and whether they should be flat throughout the country, is a vast subject which could not be dealt with on a debate about the unemployment situation in North-East Scotland. It is a much wider subject than that. I am sure, however, that it is a subject which my right hon. Friend has considered and is considering.
We intend to do all we can to provide new employment in this area. We intend to use our powers to stop development of the congested areas and to steer firms to Development Areas without damage to British industry wherever possible. We shall encourage firms to go to Scotland. We have had considerable success in Scotland, though, I agree, not enough. One only has to see the fine new factories going up, many of them taken over by American firms. As soon as Ravenscraig is in operation new industries will be attracted to Scotland, and in this context I would point out that nothing succeeds like success. The more firms that go to these areas the more we shall persuade other firms to go there. But we must not minimise the difficulties.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.